Scalia Dismisses ‘Living Constitution’
The Supreme Court justice drives home his misguided belief that changes in society's mores shouldn't be reflected in the Constitution. Sure: the Founding Fathers got it all right 200 years ago--including the bit about counting Americans of African descent as three-fifths of a person.:
PONCE, Puerto Rico — People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution “as it was originally written and intended.”
Truthdig says: The Supreme Court justice drives home his misguided belief that changes in society’s mores shouldn’t be reflected in the Constitution. Sure: the Founding Fathers got it all right 200 years ago–including the bit about counting Americans of African descent as three-fifths of a person.
Rooted in Truth.Independent by Design.
Your support helps ensure that rigorous reporting, thoughtful analysis, and investigative journalism remain accessible to everyone.
Support independent journalism.
Courts & Law
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.