Wait. WHAT?! Scalia goes off the deep end?

[Hoosier8]

Well, Scalia is an originalist and that means leaving much to the States.

 

[dross]

Scalia doesn't call himself an originalist, he calls himself a textualist . His interest in history is more directed towards understanding what the words in the Constitution mean, by understanding what the men who wrote them meant. It's subtle but it makes a difference.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, Scalia is an originalist and that means leaving much to the States.

I am not so sure about that. It hasn't been all that long ago that he expressed a level of contempt for the Tenth Amendment that I found particularly distressing.

 

[Hoosier8]

Interesting but the usual swing vote, Kennedy, has an interesting history. People try to guess if he is liberal or conservative and are upset when he swings one way or the other, but if you look at his decisions, he sides with individual liberty, that is why he was one of the strongest dissenters on Obamacare.

 

[downzero]

Scalia doesn't call himself an originalist, he calls himself a textualist . His interest in history is more directed towards understanding what the words in the Constitution mean, by understanding what the men who wrote them meant. It's subtle but it makes a difference.

Originalism in constitutional interpretation and textualist in statutory interpretation.

He's both.

 

[dross]

Originalism in constitutional interpretation and textualist in statutory interpretation.

He's both.

The distinction I've heard him make is that his fidelity is to the words and what they meant, not to an attempt to determine the intent of they who wrote them.

 

[downzero]

The distinction I've heard him make is that his fidelity is to the words and what they meant, not to an attempt to determine the intent of they who wrote them.

Original meaning, not original intent.

Laws are enacted by collective bodies. A collective cannot have intent.

 

[dross]

Original meaning, not original intent.

Laws are enacted by collective bodies. A collective cannot have intent.

Please expand that thought. Why can't a collective have intent?

 

[CarmelHP]

Original meaning, not original intent.

Laws are enacted by collective bodies. A collective cannot have intent.

dross, see http://www.randybarnett.com/nonoriginalists.htm

While in law school about 15 of us had lunch with Professor Barnett to discuss this topic, it was very compelling. It's not that a collective can not have intent, it's just difficult to aggregate collective intent and to know what that intent was.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I find it amazing that we got semi-favorable rulings on Heller and McDonald. Don't count on these asshats to do us anymore favors. Magazine bans, semi-auto bans, import bans, etc. all would likely stand if passed by congress and challenged in the SCOTUS.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I find it amazing that we got semi-favorable rulings on Heller and McDonald. Don't count on these asshats to do us anymore favors. Magazine bans, semi-auto bans, import bans, etc. all would likely stand if passed by congress and challenged in the SCOTUS.

I am with you all the way. The choices on the court with the exception of Kennedy appear to be statists with ketchup or statists with mustard.

 

[CampingJosh]

Someone hasn't read their constitution. Judges have life tenure "in good behavior." No Supreme Court justice has ever been removed.

Announcing a bias on legal issues without hearing cases argued wouldn't be good behavior. A friend of mine, a retired judge, explained this to me.
Despite spending forty-some years in a court room, he is ethically restricted from answering legal questions.