Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Monday, April 28, 2008
Getting to know Scalia and Thomas
Justice Scalia was on Sixty Minutes last night. It was a relatively positive interview though I don't know if Leslie Stahl was just playing dumb or if she really had done no research into what Justice Scalia has been quite public about saying what his judicial philosophy is.Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."Why is such an idea so threatening? IT is because they don't want to make changes democratically.
"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.
"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.
"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.
"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.
"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.
"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can…I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use… A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."Yes, it is difficult to pass certain laws. That is what democracy is about. People who criticize Scalia are people who want the courts to usurp the role of the legislature.
It's good for a wider audience to get a better look at Justice Scalia. He is held up as some sort of bogey man hated by the left because they see him as trying to block changes that they want to make in society and can't get through an elected legislature.
Note this argument that Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes in opposition to Scalia's originalism.To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.Well, that is true for 1787, but not when you include the amendments that have since been added to the Constitution. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that Scalia would ignore the 27 amendments to the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment. Since it was ratified in 1868, every citizen is included in 'We the People.' When courts, to their great discredit denied African Americans the equal protection of the law, they were reflecting what people of the day felt was right. That is actually more of a Living Constitution approach than an originalist approach. When the words of the 14th Amendment say that no state can deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," I don't doubt that Scalia would say that those words mean exactly what they seem to mean. So, Ginsburg's objection just makes no sense.
"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.
Clarence Thomas is another one whom his opponents have caricatured beyond recognition. I just finished listening to Thomas's autobiography, My Grandfather's Son. I like to listen to audiobooks while driving to work, doing housework, and exercising. I just couldn't put it down. Thomas is the reader for the audiobook and hearinghis own words in his own voice was very moving. He pays tribute to his grandparents who raised him to work hard and stand up for what he believes even though, as a young man, he rebelled against his grandfather. He came later to understand how his grandfather helped mold him into the man he became. He traces his evolution from an angry radical in his college years to a man who came to his own views independently of what is expected from a black man. He faces opposition and contempt because he won't adhere to a liberal line. He recounts the ugly opposition he faced as soon as his views became public and how that opposition was willing to lie and twist his words as they attempted to destroy him. His account of what he faced as a nominee for the Supreme Court and the whole ugliness of the Anita Hill allegations was riveting.
My only complaint about the book was that it ended with him being sworn into the Court. I could have listened for another few hours. When I took my evening walk and listened to Clarence Thomas's book, I found myself extending my walk because I just wanted to hear more. In this way, his book was good for my health. If you haven't read the book, I strongly recommend you get it and read it or, if you need something to listen to in the car or while exercising, get the audiobook.Labels: Supreme Court
0 comments
Comments:
Justice Scalia was on Sixty Minutes last night. It was a relatively positive interview though I don't know if Leslie Stahl was just playing dumb or if she really had done no research into what Justice Scalia has been quite public about saying what his judicial philosophy is.
It's good for a wider audience to get a better look at Justice Scalia. He is held up as some sort of bogey man hated by the left because they see him as trying to block changes that they want to make in society and can't get through an elected legislature.
Note this argument that Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes in opposition to Scalia's originalism.
Clarence Thomas is another one whom his opponents have caricatured beyond recognition. I just finished listening to Thomas's autobiography, My Grandfather's Son. I like to listen to audiobooks while driving to work, doing housework, and exercising. I just couldn't put it down. Thomas is the reader for the audiobook and hearinghis own words in his own voice was very moving. He pays tribute to his grandparents who raised him to work hard and stand up for what he believes even though, as a young man, he rebelled against his grandfather. He came later to understand how his grandfather helped mold him into the man he became. He traces his evolution from an angry radical in his college years to a man who came to his own views independently of what is expected from a black man. He faces opposition and contempt because he won't adhere to a liberal line. He recounts the ugly opposition he faced as soon as his views became public and how that opposition was willing to lie and twist his words as they attempted to destroy him. His account of what he faced as a nominee for the Supreme Court and the whole ugliness of the Anita Hill allegations was riveting.
My only complaint about the book was that it ended with him being sworn into the Court. I could have listened for another few hours. When I took my evening walk and listened to Clarence Thomas's book, I found myself extending my walk because I just wanted to hear more. In this way, his book was good for my health. If you haven't read the book, I strongly recommend you get it and read it or, if you need something to listen to in the car or while exercising, get the audiobook.
0 comments
Justice Scalia was on Sixty Minutes last night. It was a relatively positive interview though I don't know if Leslie Stahl was just playing dumb or if she really had done no research into what Justice Scalia has been quite public about saying what his judicial philosophy is.
Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."Why is such an idea so threatening? IT is because they don't want to make changes democratically.
"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.
"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.
"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.
"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.
"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.
"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.
Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can…I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use… A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."Yes, it is difficult to pass certain laws. That is what democracy is about. People who criticize Scalia are people who want the courts to usurp the role of the legislature.
It's good for a wider audience to get a better look at Justice Scalia. He is held up as some sort of bogey man hated by the left because they see him as trying to block changes that they want to make in society and can't get through an elected legislature.
Note this argument that Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes in opposition to Scalia's originalism.
To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.Well, that is true for 1787, but not when you include the amendments that have since been added to the Constitution. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that Scalia would ignore the 27 amendments to the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment. Since it was ratified in 1868, every citizen is included in 'We the People.' When courts, to their great discredit denied African Americans the equal protection of the law, they were reflecting what people of the day felt was right. That is actually more of a Living Constitution approach than an originalist approach. When the words of the 14th Amendment say that no state can deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," I don't doubt that Scalia would say that those words mean exactly what they seem to mean. So, Ginsburg's objection just makes no sense.
"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.
Clarence Thomas is another one whom his opponents have caricatured beyond recognition. I just finished listening to Thomas's autobiography, My Grandfather's Son. I like to listen to audiobooks while driving to work, doing housework, and exercising. I just couldn't put it down. Thomas is the reader for the audiobook and hearinghis own words in his own voice was very moving. He pays tribute to his grandparents who raised him to work hard and stand up for what he believes even though, as a young man, he rebelled against his grandfather. He came later to understand how his grandfather helped mold him into the man he became. He traces his evolution from an angry radical in his college years to a man who came to his own views independently of what is expected from a black man. He faces opposition and contempt because he won't adhere to a liberal line. He recounts the ugly opposition he faced as soon as his views became public and how that opposition was willing to lie and twist his words as they attempted to destroy him. His account of what he faced as a nominee for the Supreme Court and the whole ugliness of the Anita Hill allegations was riveting.
My only complaint about the book was that it ended with him being sworn into the Court. I could have listened for another few hours. When I took my evening walk and listened to Clarence Thomas's book, I found myself extending my walk because I just wanted to hear more. In this way, his book was good for my health. If you haven't read the book, I strongly recommend you get it and read it or, if you need something to listen to in the car or while exercising, get the audiobook.
Labels: Supreme Court
Comments:
Post a Comment
