Scalia in the New Yorker
On the flight back today I finished reading a good article on Scalia in the New Yorker. It’s slightly biased against him in some of the language, but by and large, presents a pretty fair picture. There’s a Q&A with the author, but the article itself doesn’t seem to be online. Check it out if you can.
There seems to be an upward tick in coverage of Scalia, probably not too surprising considering Rehnquist’s failing health & talk of him being a possible replacement as Chief Justice. (If Bush nominates Thomas instead, so help me, I’ll be that much closer to not voting for him again.)
Reading the aritcle, I was surprised to find out that he’s close friends with Ginsburg. That in of itself is a microcosm of why I like him so much. Far from a partisian hack, Scalia sticks to his views and is unwilling to bend them to get the result he personally would like. He feels strongly that the Court should not assume powers of the Legislative branch by creating new interpretations of existing laws. How often do you find a member of our government seeking to limit their powers?
March 29th, 2005 at 11:28 am
Not believing that the Constitution is a living document is “preposterous and irrational” to use a couple of his favortie dissenting words.
Partisan hack or no, he is absurd.
March 29th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Why is that absurd?
March 29th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Because the people who wrote it knew that it was going to have to be a living document when they wrote it. And while the legislative branch is endowed with the ability and responsibility to ammend the document as the changing time dictate, it will always be behind the population and we rely on the juducial branch to more frequently interpret the meaning of the constitution within the context of current society.
March 29th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
So how do you distingish when changes should come from the judicial branch vs. the legislative?
Doesn’t intrepreting based upon the context of current society mean it’s the judges role to do so? And if that’s the case, how would that play into Brown decision? Clearly the context of current society at that point was _not_ that men where equal regardless of race.
March 29th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
I don’t believe it’s a black and white issue. I think sometimes judges, particularly given that our legal system is based largely on precedent, will be in a position to affect policy wether we like it or not. As for the Brown decision, the country was largely divided at that point so it’s not that the decision was entirely out of context of society’s current thinking, but rather that the decision was a bit ahead of the curve.
March 29th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
So we give no guidance to the Supreme Court? We simply say to the judges obey the Constitution when it feels right, but if it doesn’t, it’s okay to give it a tweak.
We’re basically make the Court an oligarchy at that point.
March 29th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Of course not. It’s not as simple as here are the rules or there are no rules. I’m sure the name of the vocation “judge” came from judgement. We should expect them to use it.
April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
I am not a big Scalia fan but I walked around from reading the article liking him a little more. He is consistent and came across as funnier than I would have thought.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Thank You