Scalia: Supreme Court should not be m...

Scalia: Supreme Court should not be moral arbiters

There are 11 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Jul 30, 2010, titled Scalia: Supreme Court should not be moral arbiters. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Antonin Scalia believes Supreme Court justices are all too often deciding the nation's morals from the bench.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Thanks

Watsonville, CA

#1 Jul 30, 2010
I wonder if the guy who wants his country back, is also opposed to the deluge of illegal immigrants? No? It's not in the leftist-academic politically correct playbook? Too bad. I wonder if he supports the use of courts to overturn referenda passed by popular vote? Probably yes.
Summit Bob

Hercules, CA

#2 Jul 30, 2010
He looks so freakin' silly with that jet black dyed hair at 74. Does he think he's a teenager?
Obummer

Clermont, FL

#3 Jul 30, 2010
Justice Scalia still believes in the Constitution and the ways of the founding fathers...God bless him, he is a dying breed...Before long the Supreme Court will be filled with Liberals and they will throw the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the trash can and burn them...
Craig

Watsonville, CA

#4 Jul 30, 2010
what a stupid SCOTUS judge. read about law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

since history, culture and societies are not static, neither should the law be static. the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned all the changes due to technology, social movements and cultural diversity in our country,

why should the law be static when nothing else is?

Since: Jul 07

Norfolk, VA

#5 Jul 30, 2010
the president wants a supreme court justice with good "life experience" who can be "empathetic". screw that. we need judges who know the law and the constitution and know how to keep their own opinions out of their opinions...
David

Beltrami Isl State For, MN

#6 Jul 30, 2010
Craig wrote:
what a stupid SCOTUS judge. read about law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
since history, culture and societies are not static, neither should the law be static. the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned all the changes due to technology, social movements and cultural diversity in our country,
why should the law be static when nothing else is?
Right. Because everyone should get there information from Wikipedia, the resident experts on matters of law.
Craig

Watsonville, CA

#7 Jul 30, 2010
David wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Because everyone should get there information from Wikipedia, the resident experts on matters of law.
here is a legal expert for you:

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/con...
what a joke

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Jul 30, 2010
scalia should be talking about the constitution. what a joke. he is a sorry asse excuse for a judge. lightening should be striking him soon.
Richard Saunders

Belmont, CA

#9 Jul 30, 2010
That is why we have legislatures and law makers who write the laws,

Why should judges interpret a law that was not intended by the law maker?

What is the justification of a judge to change the meaning of a law at whim?

And how does the current constitution impose on our culture, history, society, technology and cultural diversity in a negative way?

We are a constitutional federal republic. Laws are amended and changed to conform with the culture all the time. That is the lawmaker's job.

And that is the way it should be.

Judges have no political accountability.
Craig wrote:
what a stupid SCOTUS judge. read about law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
since history, culture and societies are not static, neither should the law be static. the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned all the changes due to technology, social movements and cultural diversity in our country,
why should the law be static when nothing else is?
NObama

El Paso, TX

#10 Jul 30, 2010
The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench or implement public policy.
Craig

Watsonville, CA

#11 Jul 31, 2010
Richard Saunders wrote:
That is why we have legislatures and law makers who write the laws,
Why should judges interpret a law that was not intended by the law maker?
What is the justification of a judge to change the meaning of a law at whim?
And how does the current constitution impose on our culture, history, society, technology and cultural diversity in a negative way?
We are a constitutional federal republic. Laws are amended and changed to conform with the culture all the time. That is the lawmaker's job.
And that is the way it should be.
Judges have no political accountability.
<quoted text>
who can determine the intentions of lawmakers? not people out of office. that's what judges are for. laws may not be amended in a way consistent with the constitution given the biases of lawmakers. consider Jim Crow laws and Separate But Equal. lawmakers made these laws. it required judges to overturn them.

judges were meant to be above the foibles of politicking. if they were elected, we would have an even bigger mess than we are in. they need independence.

anyways, many local judges are elected.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bozeman Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP candidate charged with misdemeanor assault ... 3 hr BB Board 21
I WISH we had a guy like THIS to vote for 5 hr NoneYa 3
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Montana (D... (Oct '10) 12 hr Amazenblue 77
New resturant in town May 15 mud slanger 1
Review: Xtreme Carpet Cleaning (Jan '13) Apr '17 Kathy 4
gay (Aug '16) Mar '17 Machine Gun Sammy 3
News Obama burger makes debut at Ted Turner eatery (Aug '09) Feb '17 Big Burger Phart 130

Bozeman Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bozeman Mortgages