They do “make law” in the sense of making case law, but that’s what a common law system is, for better or worse. I’m a little doubtful that most Americans are in a hurry to abandon the system, however flawed it is.
Justice Scalia’s death was a sad day for me. Loved his opinions. I wish there were 9 of him on the court. He got appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan when I was in law school. He did a widely reported speech (in legal circles at least) on how the doctrine of standing supported the constitutional separation of powers. I dropped a letter to his office and, sure enough, a few weeks later I received a late draft of the speech with accompanying notes, plus a cover letter wishing me the best in law school. I will treasure that letter even more now.
Or just him and do away with the other 8 would also do the trick right? Is this a common belief among other lawyers as well? That a homgonized Supreme Court is really what it’s all about? 1 Scalia or 9 Scalia’s would be ideal? 
I’m no conspiracy theorist but the local judge’s decision not to order a post-mortem examination is a little odd. MOSSAD?
Yeah there are already articles drawing parallels to the Kennedy assassination, and of course that’s totally rational. We all know that an unhealthy 79 year old couldn’t possibly have died in his sleep. Obviously it was a hired hit by the Obama administration.
It’s Alex Jones and Glenn Beck who are the strongest conspiracy claimants, so that alone is an excellent indication of its degree of veracity (i.e. zero).
You’re on the right track but you forgot the hidden hand behind behind the assassinations. The reptilians.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“BrentGolf”]Take gay marriage. When I read the constitution it seems as crystal clear as could be that it should be a no brainer right for all people of age to marry whoever they want, and they should have the exact same laws protecting that union with respect to taxes, estates, insurance, children, etc…
When they did rule slightly in favour, where did they “create” new law? Didn’t they just interpret the already existing language and extend rights beyond where they were before? Is that what you mean by creating new law?[/quote]
What they did was overturn laws prohibiting gay marriage, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal rights for all, thereby allowing gay marriage by default. No new law was created; the prohibitions were struck down.[/quote]
Indeed, as well as 19th century laws prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults. Scalia, of course, was on the wrong side of that simple act of justice, refusing to exercise judicial review by acknowledging that there’s no rational justification under the 14th Amendment for arbitrarily allowing some consenting adults but not others to engage in certain activities. Fortunately, when “progressives” gain the upper hand in the Supreme Court we can look forward to them removing the rest of the arbitrary 19th century prohibitions on consensual adult behavior such as those on sex work, polygamy and polyandry.
Perfect summing up of Scalia’s legacy
newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ … g-backward
Not to mention being an affirmative action choice put in for reasons of partisan political advantage
[quote] Biskupic noted that one of Scalia’s White House champions, then-communications director Pat Buchanan, wrote a memo to Reagan explicitly citing Scalia’s ethnicity as a reason to select him:
Buchanan’s stance also reflected the political and strategic dimension of what Meese was seeking in the legal realm: “While Bork is [an] ex-Marine and a brilliant judge, I would lean to Scalia for the first seat [of Reagan’s second term]. He is an Italian-American, a Roman Catholic, who would be the first Italian ever nominated—a tremendous achievement for what is America’s largest ethnic minority, not yet fully assimilated into the melting pot—a minority which provides the GOP its crucial margins of victory in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.” Buchanan closed his memo by referring to “the cruciality of the Supreme Court to the Right-to-Life Movement, to the School Prayer Movement, the anti-pornography people etc.—all of whom provide the Republicans with the decisive Presidential margins.”[/quote]
[quote=“MikeN”]Perfect summing up of Scalia’s legacy
newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ … g-backward
Not to mention being an affirmative action choice put in for reasons of partisan political advantage
[/quote]
Homosexuality even not so long ago had a great contrast to todays views, have you seen the imitation game with Alan Turing? It’s not so long ago, Do you condemn Clinton for her views on gay marriage as little as 10 years ago? Do you hold her in the same contempt?
Not me, because ten, fifteen years ago, voicing support for gay marriage was political suicide for anyone running for elected office (barring local politicians with “safe” constituencies). Same reason Obama, Gore and Bill Clinton voiced opposition.
Things only changed in the last 5 years.
Scalia, on the other hand, was not in elected office; he was a SC justice appointed for life. Plus his opinions as written in his dissenting opinions show a deep hatred for homosexuality. He abandons all reason in those opinions he wrote.
If those were her true views, then absolutely. There is no excuse what so ever to have ever held a true position against gay marriage. We’ll allow for an arbitrary old people cut off of let’s say the year 1950. Anything before that I’ll give it a pass. Any anti gay views after 1950 should be held in contempt.
Of course the problem with Clinton’s views are, she’s also a politician, so she’s by very job title a liar. Who knows what she really believed and when. As Chris said, holding politicians to the same standard as a supreme court judge is not fair. Politicians views change with the people and that’s true on both sides of the aisle.
Judges are supposed to be on the right side of justice and equal rights for all regardless of popular opinion. Any judge against gay marriage is a bigot, a moron, and not fit to be a judge.
As far as Clinton goes, we can only guess. My guess is that she’s been pro gay marriage for her entire life. In public though, anti gay marriage keeps her job.
[quote]
If those were her true views, then absolutely. There is no excuse what so ever to have ever held a true position against gay marriage. We’ll allow for an arbitrary old people cut off of let’s say the year 1950. Anything before that I’ll give it a pass. Any anti gay views after 1950 should be held in contempt.
Of course the problem with Clinton’s views are, she’s also a politician, so she’s by very job title a liar. Who knows what she really believed and when. As Chris said, holding politicians to the same standard as a supreme court judge is not fair. Politicians views change with the people and that’s true on both sides of the aisle.
Judges are supposed to be on the right side of justice and equal rights for all regardless of popular opinion. Any judge against gay marriage is a bigot, a moron, and not fit to be a judge.
As far as Clinton goes, we can only guess. My guess is that she’s been pro gay marriage for her entire life. In public though, anti gay marriage keeps her job.[/quote]
I believe that the constitutionality of gay marriage came down to HOW it was being addressed. Does this become a Supreme Court decision, to some, a diktat, or does it go through what would have been the normal procedure whereby state legislatures (75%) and 2/3rds of Congress are required to vote in favor? IF the Supreme Court gets to decide, what then is done with the previous precedent? or does this involve only cases whereby some feel very strongly and thus get to overpower the feelings/sentiments of others because this is a “basic right.” I am staying out of this issue but I think that there are/were some serious procedural issues (and this also goes to the abortion issue as well) that have taken a slightly different path than previous major decisions. The question, then, of course, becomes/became why for certain causes and not for others. Can you answer that?
Those two issues seem very different to me. As far as gay rights go it seems as obvious as could be. People are people, and equal rights for all is not the slightest bit ambiguous.
Rights of the woman to choose vs rights of the unborn child seems a lot more complicated to me, both morally and legally. I’m pro choice, but it’s not like I can’t see the potential for opinions on the other side of that one. Of course not to the Republican level of no matter what (even rape 
) but there are reasonable arguments to at least restricting abortion to certain conditions.
But gay rights? Could anything be easier? Ask the question, are you a person of consenting age? If yes, then equal rights for you. Done
Scalia’s funeral yesterday.
“I couldn’t attend, but I did send a nice note saying I approved of it”.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“MikeN”]http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward
Not to mention being an affirmative action choice put in for reasons of partisan political advantage
[/quote]
Homosexuality even not so long ago had a great contrast to todays views, have you seen the imitation game with Alan Turing? It’s not so long ago, Do you condemn Clinton for her views on gay marriage as little as 10 years ago? Do you hold her in the same contempt?[/quote]
I can’t speak for MikeN, but I think the point there was the contrast between Scalia’s criticism of affirmative action in a recent case and the suggestion that he owed his own appointment to affirmative action.
That’s a good point, and I wish I could remember the name of the article or book a few years ago proposing that courts should be less “activist” not because their activism takes society in the wrong direction but because it takes society in the right direction faster than society can adjust, and if they would wait for legislative opinion and therefore popular opinion to catch up then the same changes would occur anyway but without so much backlash. (I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the theory, just pointing it out.)
However, the thing about living constitutions is, centuries of precedent have established that courts do have the authority to bring about these changes, so I only see two legitimate way to stop them from doing that.
-
Amend the constitution explicitly to prevent judges from bringing about social change. Where to draw the line then would be a difficult question.
-
Appoint more judges like Scalia who believe in “dead” constitutions (or at least the deadness of their own nation’s constitution), so they can establish more precedents in support of the deadness.
Option 1 seems unfeasible because it wouldn’t have enough public support.
Option 2 seems unfeasible because it would take a long time to accomplish decisively, and during that time its opponents would mobilize significant opposition.
The tide of history seems to be against the dead constitution doctrine and therefore also against policymakers who go out of their way to support it e.g. by appointing more Scalia’s. 
It’s either a “dead” Constitution or a dead democracy. Take your choice. If an “activist” judiciary refuses to confine itself to the role of adjudicating by gradually usurping the role of policy making because nobody can stop it (ie. “precedent”) then the tide of history will one day leave the people stranded on the shores of the fake sand Islands of Politburocracy.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“MikeN”]Perfect summing up of Scalia’s legacy
newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ … g-backward
Not to mention being an affirmative action choice put in for reasons of partisan political advantage
[/quote]
Homosexuality even not so long ago had a great contrast to todays views, have you seen the imitation game with Alan Turing? It’s not so long ago, Do you condemn Clinton for her views on gay marriage as little as 10 years ago? Do you hold her in the same contempt?[/quote]
I’m old enough that I remember in high school being threatened with a pounding for being a ‘fruit-lover’ for suggesting that ‘homos’ were sick people who should be given psychiatric treatment rather than evil perverts who should be thrown in jail or worse. That was for defending Pierre Trudeau’s famous 1967 statement “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” * Mine was a liberal position back then, at least in the standard middle-class suburbs I grew up in.
In 2003 Scalia was arguing that the State had the right to throw people in prison for the crime of having consensual gay sex between two adults in the privacy of their own bedroom, and there was nothing to indicate he’d changed his mind anytime since- I’d be extremely suprised if he had, instead of taking pride in his “original” position.
(Even the Catholic Church has abandoned that stand, and now opposes criminalizing gay sex as such, though Catholics often seem to forget that’s exactly what the Church was in favour of when it vehemently supported Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence)
Not to mention the various other times he put the Constitution through the wringer to support his positions crapping on the weak and minority groups- though give him his due, he was pretty good on the 4th Amendment.
*Actually he borrowed it from reporter Martin O’Malley, but he did publicly acknowledge it at the time and thank him
As far as the “living” or “dead” constitution goes, if science did invent a time machine is there anybody here who’s first thought is: “Sweet, now I can go live in 1787.” No thanks, I prefer to live in 2016 and I might even choose 2100 where several more decades of progress has adapted the constitution even further. Who doesn’t want society to evolve ethically over time? Aside from some old white men of course.