Scalia showing his respect for diverse opinion

Ghoulish Delight · 02-14-2006, 05:07 PM

I had respect for Scalia. While I disagree with much of his reasoning, I do end up agreeing with a good chunk of his decissions. However, this says to me that he gives zero weight to anything someone who disagrees with him on the Court says, and that concerns me.

And before you trot out my view that I would vote against Alito's nomination for said same reason, I'll argue that we're talking two different things. As a Senator voting for or against confirmation, it's your job to vote against them if you think they are the wrong person for the job. If that were simply a matter of "do they meet the qualifications", there would be no need for a confirmation process. Just throw the job opening up on Monster and take the first person whose resume matches. As in indiviudal voter, the question before a Senator is, "Is this person going to best serve America on the Court?" Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to vote against them if you think their interpretation of the Constitution is not good for America.

On the other hand, as an acting Justice, it's your job to work with the other 9 judges to decide cases. After hearing this, I have a hard time believing that Scalia listens to anyone and just says, "I'm right, you're wrong, piss off."

Alex · 02-14-2006, 05:16 PM

Well, on this particular issue he has shown himself as having a set-in-stone opinion. But considering he has been grappling with the living constitution issue for most of his professional life, how much openness can he (or any of the other justices) have for different conclusions than the one he has reached on what is the fundamental question of constitutional law. I doubt Ginsburg goes into each conference session saying "You know Antonin, this time you almost convinced me that rigid strict constructionism is the way to go."

He has spent 30 years looking at the question and decided that only retards could have reached a certain conclusion. I disagree with him, but I'm not upset by it. Also, having heard him speak in person before and having been surprised by his sarcastic wit, I doubt he literally thinks you're an idiot (at least not because of this issue; my sense is he thinks 99% of the people are idiots compared to him and he might be right).

02-14-2006, 05:07 PM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I had respect for Scalia. While I disagree with much of his reasoning, I do end up agreeing with a good chunk of his decissions. However, this says to me that he gives zero weight to anything someone who disagrees with him on the Court says, and that concerns me. And before you trot out my view that I would vote against Alito's nomination for said same reason, I'll argue that we're talking two different things. As a Senator voting for or against confirmation, it's your job to vote against them if you think they are the wrong person for the job. If that were simply a matter of "do they meet the qualifications", there would be no need for a confirmation process. Just throw the job opening up on Monster and take the first person whose resume matches. As in indiviudal voter, the question before a Senator is, "Is this person going to best serve America on the Court?" Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to vote against them if you think their interpretation of the Constitution is not good for America. On the other hand, as an acting Justice, it's your job to work with the other 9 judges to decide cases. After hearing this, I have a hard time believing that Scalia listens to anyone and just says, "I'm right, you're wrong, piss off." __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2006, 05:16 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, on this particular issue he has shown himself as having a set-in-stone opinion. But considering he has been grappling with the living constitution issue for most of his professional life, how much openness can he (or any of the other justices) have for different conclusions than the one he has reached on what is the fundamental question of constitutional law. I doubt Ginsburg goes into each conference session saying "You know Antonin, this time you almost convinced me that rigid strict constructionism is the way to go." He has spent 30 years looking at the question and decided that only retards could have reached a certain conclusion. I disagree with him, but I'm not upset by it. Also, having heard him speak in person before and having been surprised by his sarcastic wit, I doubt he literally thinks you're an idiot (at least not because of this issue; my sense is he thinks 99% of the people are idiots compared to him and he might be right).
	Submit to Quotes