Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, spoke to a group at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Jeffrey King transcribed the speech from tape, a diligence I certainly appreciate. And I have added his blog to my list.
Scalia calls himself an “originalist” rather than a “strict constructionist”, and I think that term fits much better. And he explains why he defines the two differently.
More important, he talks about what the Constitution is really about, and how we ended up where we are today with the Senate.
I think the very terminology suggests where we have arrived: at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants.
And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years.
He summed up the issue quite well, thank you.
It is precisely the point to be made. If you don’t like something, get the laws changed. Don’t go to court. The courts are supposed to be there to protect your rights, not to impose your desires on others. And if the majority impose their beliefs on you through law that infringes on your rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, the courts are supposed to strike down those laws.
It’s really a pretty simple concept.
The crux of all issues in the Senate at this time is abortion. The Democratic Party holds this issue as their most important rallying point. They will accept no nominee to the Supreme Court who is unwilling to state they will protect Roe v. Wade without question. And right now, they are unwilling to allow Dubya to put anyone onto the Court unless they are “moderate.” Read Scalia’s speech and see how he destroys the entire concept of “moderate judges.”
[quote]If you don’t like something, get the laws changed. Don’t go to court. The courts are supposed to be there to protect your rights, not to impose your desires on others.[/quote]
How does this apply to the recent smoking ban imposed in Corpus Christi?
Comment by john — March 17, 2005 @ 10:06 am
In that case, going to court is appropriate as the government is imposing itself in private matters. I don’t agree with the route of a petition to put that on the ballot because once again it would be a majority imposing its will outside the bounds of Constitutional guarantee.
I believe the rights of the restaurant owners are being infringed because they are told how to run their business. The health issue is a non-starter for several reasons. First, the health department is our representative in the kitchen to be sure nothing untoward is going on there. We cannot inspect kitchens. But we can certainly decide whether to enter a restaurant that allows smoking. Second, the City Council–if really concerned about health–would not, and should not have done an economic impact study before ruling. That tells me health wasn’t their concern.
Comment by Bunker — March 17, 2005 @ 10:59 am
Good answer, Bunker.
I, too, wish that people who wanted something would go about it the legitimate way; trying to persuade people and putting it up for a vote. Referendum or in the legislature doesn’t really matter, but I’m tired of folks trying to get their agendas through by using the courts.
Taking your issue of abortion, Brennan knew perfectly well that there was nothing in the constitution to support his view. So he made up the idea of a “prenumbra”. Totally fake, but the left defends it to this day
Comment by The Redhunter — March 17, 2005 @ 7:11 pm