Scalia says the American people want the SCOTUS to rewrite the

[Raven]

Constitution. Heard on NHPR this afternoon.

Somehow, I thought the Justices were supposed to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it.

We'll get lots more of this if McCain is elected.

[Iris]

1. I can just guess how he'd rewrite it.

[Binka]

3. With His Big Fat Fascist Crayon?

Vanfancullo Tony!

[Iris]

18. Love that image!

I picture it as purple - Fat Tony and His Purple Crayon!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. TMI!

:puke:

[Iris]

26. hey! You're the one that threw in something else!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. I take my share of the blame.

x(

[Iris]

31. well, it was good for a laugh!

Any laugh at Tony's expense is a good one!

[caledesi]

12. Me too! nt

[DebbieCDC]

2. Gee, I thought the repukes didn't want "activist" judges...

...That legislate from the bench.

Guess I was wrong.

[damonm]

11. You make a fundamental mistake...

"Activist judge" is Con code for "judge who makes rulings I disagree with".

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Isn't he touted as a "strict constitutionalist" and hater of "activist judges"?

Crimeny, I can smell they hypocrisy all there way on the other coast.

[BzaDem]

5. Are you sure he wasn't ridiculing the American people for wanting the SCOTUS

to rewrite the constitution? That's usually his position.

[Raven]

10. You know, maybe NHPR got it wrong but my first thought was

that Scalia is now so arrogant that he believes that God wants him to do the whole thing over...in his image.

[11 Bravo]

6. I want Fat Tony to take a long walk off a short pier, but ...

that sounds contrary to a fairly extensive paper trail of written judicial opinions.

[SoCalDem]

7. Actually, I seem to recall that the founders kind of expected it to be

looked at and revised generationally.

Had that been done....say every 25 years, we would have clearer laws and less need for SCOTUS interference..

There's almost ZERO in today's world that was even imagined back when it was written..


Does any thinking person really believe that the founders would have wanted everyone over 18 to have as many UZIs as they could afford?

[Orsino]

8. Sorry, Tony...

...but your lying, corrupt ass has helped make the SCOTUS irrelevant. Are you suddenly going to rediscover the rule of law next January?

[Lint Head]

9. Scalia is a coward.

:dem:

[high density]

13. Scalia thinks we live in the 1700s

Turdface.

[MasonJar]

14. No, Scalia, the American people do NOT want you to rewrite the

Constitution. Do NOT touch my Constitution, you criminal. You should be in prison for installing W as the president against the Constitution

[Cleita]

15. They have ignored it, which is worse, making it toothless. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

16. Where did he get that idea, and where's the proof?

Oh, I forgot..he's a Republican so it's just a bit of a stretch on the "some people say" justification that they always use for injecting their desires into the media discourse as if they were actually fact.

[WillyT]

17. He Also Wants Us To Engage In Orgies...

<snip>

Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

<snip>

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/01/usa.oliverburkeman

Not the same thing, but funny as hell I think.

:wtf:

Joke: "The other night I went to an orgy. Now I got a new problem... I don't know who to thank." - Rodney Dangerfield

:silly:

[crankychatter]

19. This from the crew that decry "Judicial Activism?"

That pesky old Constitution

If we could just get rid of it, we could do what we want.

[JayFredMuggs]

20. When Obama is President, he will ask Scalia to step down for that statement

Should be good enough to get him out in 4 weeks.

Then Obama can appoint Hillary....................end of Hillary as a problem.........she can rule for all of women's rights forever.

[elehhhhna]

43. Scalia CAN be impeached, you know. Let's toss out lazy Clarence while we're at it.

[H2O Man]

21. "Part of Scalia's objection to democracy,

amplified a year later, was that it got in the way of an eighteenth-century interpretation of the US Constitution. Speaking at the January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, he opined that as written in the 1787 the Constitution reflected natural or divinely inspired law that the state was an instrument of God. 'That consensus has been upset,' he said, 'by the emergence of democracy.' He added that 'the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible'."
--Kevin Phillips; American Dynasty; pages 197-108

[Lucky 13]

22. That man terrifies me. HE is the reason we need to vote Democrat - NO MATTER WHAT.

:scared:

[MonkeyFunk]

23. I'd be interested in seeing a quote

I believe the likely explanation, if he did say something like that, was that he was bemoaning the fact that Americans want the S.C. to rewrite the constitution, not that he was in favor of it.

[pdxmom]

25. If he thinks that the SCOTUS is allowed to rewrite the Constitution, then

I would suggest that he reread it before he starts writing.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. I'd be very surprised if that's what he meant

the OP is lacking in details.

I would bet that if Scalia did say that, he did so in the context of condemning that sentiment, not endorsing it.

[LittleClarkie]

27. I thought Conservative justices were strictly literal about the Constitution

and against anything but a literal reading of the document.

I thought they were against trying to view the thing in context or changes of any kind.

Weird.

[H2O Man]

29. They are.

He is not conservative; he is a right-wing radical. Judge Reggie Walton, who did the Libby trial, is a conservative republican judge.

[cascadiance]

34. Only when it serves their purpose. When it doesn't (like with corporate personhood) they create law

Though in the case of corporate personhood, it was arguably a "court clerk" activist decision, since it was the court clerk that wrote the "headnote summary" of a decision that basically "decided" that corporations were persons, not even the courts decision actually did that. And of course it was revealed that the court clerk himself was a former railroad company exec with conflicts of interests.

But have any of these Republican so-called "constitutionalists" overturned that "court clerk" activist decision? HELL NO! It serves they and their cronies purpose to let that continue to be so-called "law" when no congress passed a law making corporations persons.

[merh]

30. I don't suppose he acknowledges the rewrite that we might find necessary

is the removal of slugs like him from the court via popular vote or petition? That would be the only change I would care about, how "WE THE PEOPLE" can remove him from office.

We must win the White House.

[Jamastiene]

32. We know that's what HE thinks. He is one of the ones

who practically made up the rules as they went along in 2000. Remember? Never forget.

[TexasObserver]

35. He's a fascist.

He should be wearing a funny hat with that robe, and sitting as a Cardinal, not a Justice.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. almost 24 hours and still no quote

Just a lot of objection to a very unlikely position by Scalia with nothing to back at up.

yup... I'm in GDP. Facts don't matter - just take what you hear and run with it.

[suston96]

37. Rewriting the Constitution is a good idea, but ......

....we need a second Constitutional Convention to do it and not the Supreme Court.

The late 18th century writing style, for one thing, is subject to misinterpretation - especially in the Bill of Rights. Start with the Second Amendment....

Other matters like impeachment and federal elections need changing...... And that Electoral College.....

[mmonk]

38. This is something all those who say they won't vote for the nominee

should keep in mind. Do you really want more justices like Scalia?

[Araxen]

39. It would be a trainwreck

If they rewrote the Constitution. It would be a big clusterfuck that would end up harming us more than helping us.

[thoughtcrime1984]

40. That is wrong on Scalia's part- it also shows us the urgency of electing a Dem President! nt

[backscatter712]

41. That's entertaining coming from a strict constitutionalist... n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

42. It would be if he were endorsing the idea

but somehow I doubt he was,and the OP won't clarify what was said.

[leftynyc]

44. We should keep this kicked for

any of the braindead morons who say they will either sit out the election or vote for mccain. This is what's at stake.

[Celebration]

45. Is there a link for this?

What program was it? Thanks.