Comments on: Scalia in the New Yorker http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/ Screams in the Night Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:18:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Alex http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-6321 Alex Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:24:31 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-6321 Thank You Thank You

]]> By: Thomas http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-366 Thomas Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:58:59 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-366 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. 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.

]]> By: khayman http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-365 khayman Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:25:50 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-365 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. 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.

]]> By: Bill http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-364 Bill Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:09:32 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-364 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. 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.

]]> By: khayman http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-363 khayman Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:24:13 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-363 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. 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.

]]> By: Bill http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-362 Bill Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:52:42 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-362 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. 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.

]]> By: khayman http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-361 khayman Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:43:12 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-361 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. 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.

]]> By: Bill http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-360 Bill Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:47:34 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-360 Why is that absurd? Why is that absurd?

]]> By: khayman http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-359 khayman Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:28:04 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2005/03/28/scalia-in-the-new-yorker/#comment-359 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. 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.

]]>