E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe most outspoken member of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, is out with a new book about how he decides cases and why he thinks most judges go about it the wrong way. He talked at the court with NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams about his book,
By Pete Williams, NBC News justice correspondent
In his new book about how judges should decide difficult legal issues, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says many go about it the wrong way.
"You will see recited in opinions all the way back that the object of interpretation is to determine the intent of the drafter. I don't believe that. We're not governed by the drafter's intent. We're governed by laws," he told NBC News in an interview at the court.
In the book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Scalia and co-author Bryan Garner explain that a textualist, like Scalia, is someone who believes that the Constitution and laws must be read on the basis of the fairest meaning of the text.
"Judges should not be using such extrinsic factors as, ‘What is the general purpose of the statute?’ Or ‘What did the Senate committee say when the statute was enacted?’" he said.
But he rejects the notion that such an approach will tend to produce a conservative outcome.
"I ought to be the pinup of the criminal defense bar, because I've written some opinions vindicating the right to trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses. I'm a law-and-order conservative socially. I wouldn't come out that way if I were king. But that's not my job," he said.
Asked if his views on textualism have influenced his Supreme Court colleagues, he replied, "If so, they've hidden it very well. All my colleagues had their basic judicial philosophy fixed long before they met me."
Some liberal members of the court have advocated a broader view, notably Stephen Breyer, arguing that judges should pay attention to a provision's purpose when the language is not clear. "Over-emphasis on text can lead courts astray, divorcing law from life," Breyer has written.
Scalia says the passion in his opinions, especially in his dissents, reflect his view that "there's no sin in caring passionately about doing the right thing. I care very much about changes to the Constitution that are simply not justified."
But, he says, some people wrongly believe strong words cause hard feelings on the bench.
"I don't translate the hostility to bad decisions into hostility towards the people who are expounding those ideas. And if you cannot do the one without the other, you ought to look for another job. It's a very unhappy place if you're personally antagonistic to the people whom you disagree with."
As for his future, Justice Scalia, at age 76 the court's longest-serving member, says he intends to remain "as long as I think I'm doing it well."
“I’m very much enjoying what I do. This is a wonderful job. I like thinking about the law. I like figuring the right answer to legal programs. And it’s sort of the top of the heap for a lawyer who has those interests.”
Leave a Comment:
He's delusional if he thinks what he does doesn't make him "king." If he interprets words not intent, I'd like to know how he got to the Citizens United devastating decision from a single decision being asked as to whether showing the derogatory Clinton video by an extreme right group was a campaign ad. Supreme Court Justices should be subject to term limits because of the power they hold and the lack of neutrality and objectivity becoming more apparent with every decision they make.
Was he interpreting words when the SCOTUS said developers could sieze private land to build shopping centers on? What a hypocrite scumbag he is
Well technically Scalia ruled that townships could legitimately seize properties under eminent domain rules to construct malls because that would generate more tax dollars and thus better the community. Still a bs ruling though. Still a pity too that the attempted seizure of his home in New England for planned conversion to a hotel didn't get the same consideration in a local court.
This is complete BS. Scalia would engage in the parsing of words in order to accommodate his already concluded intent. In plain English, he would make the words accommodate his predetermined conclusions completely ignoring clear intent that can be derived by addressing accompanying documents/speeches, etc.
So I suppose he's only "textualizing" when he enters his own, unrelated arguments in cases, like he did with arguing children of illegal aliens should not be allowed to stay in the country, during a court decision on the Constitutionality of Arizona's "papers please" law.
Or how about during the healthcare debate, Scalia arguing the legislation wouldn't have passed were it not for the "Cornhusker Kickback": a deal proposed to win Oklahoma senator Ben Nelson's vote, but which was NOT IN the actual bill that passed.
Wow, how "impartial." Just "calling balls and strikes," as Roberts says, eh? What a bunch of bull$#it. What a disgrace to the Rule of Law.
Absolutely! These justices should have a limited to serve, else they go mad by their power or senility! Note: Having no bias for the person or party who placed him on the bench would be akin to Gerald Ford having no allegiance to Nixon, who put him in office, before pardoning him.
Yes, Wet Willy, that is exactly right. I also agree about the term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Howeve, I realize that term limits will not solve the problem. There are numerous reasons, but the primary few are:
1) the President still gets to choose them
2) the pool of available candidates is totally corrupt
3) the court in general likes to use interpretation to make the laws say what they want
You can't fix the Supreme Court or any court as long as the pool of candidates are evil and wicked. They will weild their swords of power behind the bench just as Congressmen weild theirs for unconstitutional legislation. The only way to fix this problem, temporarily, is to ask God for another flood. Gack!
What is that saying? Remove all doubt by opening your mouth. What is the purpose of language? Maybe to express the thought(s) of the speaker/writer? Let's be fair and let people twist the words into something they were never meant to say!
Sully -- Ben Nelson is a Senator from Nebraska, not Oklahoma.
Hummmm ~~~A" textualist?" ~~ LOL.. ~~~~ Please independently review Judge Scalias comments & take on the Tenth Amendment, a part of Our Bill Of Rights .. seen below .....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Our founders wee'rnt writing a book and obviously counld'nt include each right reserved to "the people" but they clearly understood that humans had inalienable right that they had for thousands of years since before left the cave ... those rights are specifically reserved by them by this clause ... by the clear language and " the basis of the fairest meaning of the text" .... Judge Scalia disagrees ... That single clause negates the government intervention in major issues, such as abortion, and basic human rights that concern who control our rights to our own body ...
I respectfully suggest that Judge Scalia is as far to the right as it is possible to go ... he is essentially a supporter of absolute Sovereign power without regard for human rights or any constraints upon what ever power it takes to support the "Sovereigns" (Government) control.
This is way we're so screwed up. Why do we have such morons in for ever? What he is stateing is what the civil war was about, not slavery.
Oh yea? Tell me more about those Oklahoma Cornhuskers!
OK, fine, you caught me in a typo: Nebraska. That correction was already made once, above. Anyone else wanna pile on that, or do you have a good reason why Scalia should introduce a political argument into a court case, when it isn't factually part of the legislation?
A typo is "thar" rather than "that."
You were off by a few hundred miles.
Because he's always held that opinion and people love to create a news story out of it?
The fact so many cases brought before the Supreme court end up divided along liberal/conservative lines indicate none on the SCOTUS truly votes on the facts of the case. Some I'm sure are vaguely written so there might be different interpretations but clearly the large number that are decided down party lines indicates most decisions are attempts more to create the law as they wish it to be rather than simply interpreting it.
@Larrry-367607
And going along with what you said, there are two fundamental views from the Court- 1) that the Constitution is a living document, whose meaning changes over time to reflect current trends and beliefs and 2) the Constitution is a dead document that is stopped in time. It is not subject to change except as amended by Congress and does not reflect current views. People argue that certain cases weren't decided the right way and the Court hasn't gotten every decision right (they've overturned their own decisions several times and have narrowly tailored previous decisions to such that they are virtually overturned). But the biggest problem is with the legislators that create and put through these crazy laws that we the people want to have overturned.
The fact so many cases brought before the Supreme court end up divided along liberal/conservative lines indicate none on the SCOTUS truly votes on the facts of the case.
Allow me to alter that.....
The fact so many cases brought before the Supreme court end up divided along WHAT SOME CONSIDER liberal/conservative lines indicate none on the SCOTUS truly votes on the facts of the case.
You see we get in to this liberal/conservative thing and people get lost. Right now people calling themselves conservatives are far right idealogs and not true conservatives and in the past some liberals have been called conservatives if they vote one way or another and visa versa. Take for instance justice Warren and his so called Liberal court. Justice warren was a california Republican conservative and was about to run for president when Ike decided to run as a republican not a democrat. Now he is reguarded as a hated liberal. back then ther was very little difference in liberals and conservatives and the difference was in how to implement in most cases. John Paul Stevens was reguarded as a liberal but as he stated he was a conservative all his life. Look at the HC law. 4 so called ultra liberals (not my call) and one ultra conservative joined in letting the law stand. We interpret what a person on the court is by the way we think not how they vote. Like I have said before there is the left way the right way and somwhere in between the best way where neither side gets all of what they want period. Scalia blew his chance to ever be taken seriously when he attended the tparty convention put on by the Koch brothers. he is tainted beyond repair. I never onece read one of his opinions that made much sense after you looked at it mor than once. He contrdicts himself more than he agrees with himself. A bad choice for such a high position.
Jon the constitution is a stiff document not meant to ride with the times but designed to be changed with relative ease in a timely manner when the great majority of the people see the need to change it. Some (especially our government, folks who would be our rulers without its fetters on the state) see its sense and discipline as an anchor preventing them from doing (generally to other people) just what they want, trashing by the way the concept of the individual trumping the state.
Because Scalia attends a meeting of people whose ideas are not yours taints him not a bit. If he'd attended an NAACP meeting or an ADA meeting, would you be nagging about that? I am not God, Scalia is not God but you certainly are not, either. When the court comes down with something you disagree with, be an American, accept the opinion and go on with your life. Maybe visit the sick, do good works?
Joe F Las Vegas and Voter-in-LA need to do their homework. Scalia DISSENTED in the eminent domain case they reference (Kelo v. New London). So please give credit where credit is due for that awful decision...on the Court's four LIBERALS and J. Kennedy.
That's exactly what judges should do, interpret words, not intent. There is only ever ONE person who knows what exactly the intent of anything was, and that is the person who is doing it. So years later, as judges are left to determine guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law, they can only use the letter of the law. They cannot possibly know what the intent of the lawmakers were, when they wrote the law. Only the lawmakers themselves can ever know what they were intending. Even when lawmakers work together, they do so with differing motivations, many of which are not fully shared with the other lawmakers. to try to infer one intent or another from some writing on a page, is impossible, and it is arrogant to try. Laws will change as society changes, that is the only thing which can be don objectively. It is far too subjective, and thus dangerous to have a judge trying to mind read from the bench.
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.
I mostly agree with you, but language is a forever changing medium. What a word signified in one decade may no longer have the same precise meaning 30 years later. This could mean that at some point a law was correctly written and understood by all but over time some lawyer found a way to construe the same law to be interpreted differently. Some simple common sense should obviously apply but the downfall is we're talking about a bunch of full-of-themselves rulers from the bench.
Both the intent and the wording need to be taken into consideration. We are 200+ years into "The Great Experiment". The intent of the Founding Fathers and the authors of the Constitution should never be ignored.
Times may have changed, but throughout History, people remaine the same in how they deal with life and questions of Right and Wrong.
The Bill of Rights RULE
One of the first things that was taught to us in Business Law II by a judge who later went on to sit on the state Supreme Court is that only about a third of what is considered law is arrived at by statute,otherwise known as Black Letter Law. The rest is determined by precedents set in court rooms by judges and juries. Most law is broadly written because to make it too narrowly worded would make it almost useless.As time goes on evolving society and needs adapt written law to fit practical circumstance.
Arguments in advance of the law are systematically recorded in any legislature. Together with the casual writings of those who propose and oppose any law, there is generally a very solid and reliable record of intent. If it were true that intent was of no purpose, there would be no need for legislative records and, beyond that, no need to rely on precedent. It seems that Scalia is arguing for abolition of the Supreme Court and all other courts of appeal. What would be the need for them if the letter of the law were supreme? We would only need to recruit English majors as our arbiters.
Language and words change over centurys. So Scalia talks one way sometimes and another way sometimes. Perhaps he is just plain two faced and needs an excuse to cover his Supreme A$$, for historys sake. Dosen't want to appear biased.
Actually, when words are used unambiguously, the rule of law is they are interpreted using their common meaning. It is when words are used ambiguously that judges must divine the intent of the parties/lawmakers. Otherwise, it is impossible to choose which meaning to accept of the multiple possible interpretations of an ambiguous contract/law. This methodology is founded in old English law and predates even the aged Scalia, who seems to think he's smarter than all his predecessors on two continents.
P.S. - Nino, you're not doing a good job. Retire.
If you do not know the intent of something you cannot make a decision on plain words thats nonsense
Breadex, please expand.
See Comment #1.9 - Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:39 PM EDT
Using intent, is just an excuse to interpret the law, the way you want to. If a law is well written the intent is clear. If a law has ambiguous language it should not be the job of the judge to make the law what he wants it to be, instead the judge should ask that Congress, the people we vote to make the laws, clarify the law, and change the language. Historical documents are the one true possible exception, obviously you cannot go ask the framers of the Constitution what they meant. That said, congress has the right to change Amendments with enough votes, so laws that people might find confusing such as the right to gun ownership should be dealt with by congress, and not by judges, we elect legislators, judges should have no part in guessing what they might have meant.
I guess technically, the TOP of the heap will never be his,...I wonder if he's still pissed at W for that 'over' sight?
Oh well,...I don't believe he is familiar with the word jurisprudence and I further don't believe he practices what he preaches.
He legislates from the bench and is STILL ticked at Roberts for rubberstamping Obamacare. Tax penalty or Commerce - ahh to be a fly on the wall with that one?
spittle flew for sure.
I think you are all wet. It is well known that Scalia and Ginsberg are the best of friends outside work while they disagree mightily and fundamentally at work. And I need to know when Scalia's legislated from the bench. And what in your mind, legislating from the bench is. If by the way either Scalia or Ginsberg make a decision you get nettled by, that is not legislating from the bench. And Souter was the one that trashed rights against imminent domain although Scalia went along with it, a terrible decision. At least I, a non-lawyer think so.
The problem with all this (interpretation of laws; whether the new laws will stand constitutional tests) is that the founders, who by the way left their intentions clear, designed the constitution so that men of its times were able to read its words and understand its intentions. They were also able to change or even trash the Constitution just as we can, today. This current system we have today involves, at least to me, people attempting to use the laws to screw other people out of their property and freedom by parsing each and every word and comma as if counting the angels who could dance on the head of a bin, attempting to find ways to do what they want despite the intentions of the founders. The constitution is not long. It is not deep. It is so simple to read! Congress can't establish a state religion nor can it interfere with the practice of religion. Citizens can own arms (doesn't say guns, pikes, swords, says arms). You can say what you want and the press can too. etc.
The super-enveloping powers the state thinks the commerce clause grants it is the biggest scandal and the biggest abuse of our freedom current constitutional interpretation presents. Roberts' opinion about Obamacare is a start at pulverizing this way of using the commerce clause to empower the state and enslave the individual. Always remember the Constitution codifies the ascent of individual dominance over the powers of the state. Ginsberg's fundamental problem is that she believes the state trumps the individual.
says he intends to remain "as long as I think I'm doing it well."
Then it's long past time to move on you corrupt old unprincipled partisan fool. You've done enough damage to the nation and the Constitution.
These Supreme Court Justices are American trained lawyers, just like Miami ambulance chasers. And I don't see much difference.
I've said it a hundred times before and I'll say it again, Scalia is an idiot whose perverse attitudes and views are wrecking the country. Intent s everything. If I say to y kid, "Stop doing that." "That" becomes everything. I don't want the kid to stop breathing or listening to me or to stop moving and I don't expect that momentary injunction to desist from "doing that particular "that" to remain forever in force.
Words have no meaning in and of themselves. It's is the way they are built into an "architecture of intent" that breathes life into them. Can you read Shakespeare without regarding the intent? Letter of the law thinking is context-less thinking, superficial, disingenuous and dangerous.
As I said, the guy is an idiot. He's also a fat a-hole and sociopath.
Culheath it is the business of the lawyers who assist the legislature in making laws to imbed their intent in these laws. And these laws (especially after the passage of time) are the grist for the appellate court's mill. If the alleged intent of some law is not reflected in the text of the law, that is because either the law was written poorly or the claimant to the contrary is full of beans. These words (what gets passed by the legislature) are generally all the appellate court get. And as was shown with the recent gun decision, the court does look to some degree at the words of the law's crafters, seeking at least some intentions. But if the law simply says "No smoking on the subway", most would agree it means no smoking on the subway.
Exactly, if you have to try to figure out the intent of a law, that law as poorly written, and congress should be asked to clarify and change the wording. We elect law makers, deciding the intent of a law is essentially making a new law.
Interesting...
So if a drug dealer is caught and charged with possession of controlled substance with intent to sell, the latter is illegal because intent does no longer matter?
And Scalia is a chief justice? Really?
You my friend are uneducated and bring nothing to this conversation or society. We are all dumber for reading your comments. He is talking about law and nit criminal charges. This is the basic partisan twisting of the conversation. Conceptualize your own thoughts instead of regurgitating sound bites of your favorite gang (Red or Blue).
Oh yeah, and Scalia is not the Chief Justice. Try again.
Nor should he be ...and neither should Roberts.
Well another judge said that viewing child porn is not a crime but selling it is. Or that poker is a game of skill and not gambling! He is 88 years old from brooklyn and was put on the bench by LBJ. I say lets have all judges serve 20 years and no more. Most of them fry out long before that.
Many venues and most poker players agree poker is a game of skill. But many people are quite alert and clever at 88. Some never get there, and others start failing in their forties. We'll ignore your age bigotry. But Miightymig's cruel personal attack should get him banned.
Politics has more than crept into the Supreme Court. It was propelled by an RPG!
The electorate should have a chance to declare a "do over" when Justices play politics and make obvoiusly politically driven decisions!
BALONEY is a meat ,but if you didn't know my intent you wouldn't know I meant BS.
Spoken with the hubris of the fat, trashy, blowhard liar he is. What a pathetic pile of scum is Scalia! Of course his actions in Bush v Gore in 2000 directly and forcefully undermines his lie about words over intent. It was Scalia who led the judicial charge to overturn the words (votes) of millions of voters by selecting GW Bush as President. He allowed Florida to throw out the Words of 250,000 voters to satisfy his ultra right wing Puppet Masters. Like the Koch Brothers and Dick Cheney!
Scalia's noxious decision, based on "voter intent" overturned the words of millions of American voters who had honestly elected Al Gore as President of the USA in 2000. And that awful decision/intention by Scalia brought us the Great Bush Cheney Depression! The country is still reeling in the aftermath of this judicial dictator's wickedness. Does he think we are all fools when it comes to his BullS.h.i.t. How can anyone interpret election officials eyeballing "Hanging Chads" as anything but evaluating intent over words. He just cut the process off when a lead was artificially manufactured by Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris, for his guys (Bush/Cheney) under the logic of "intent". This lying creep is a "judicial Terrorist". Certainly not an honest judge!
Antonin Scalia=lying gasbag scum!
So if I was arrested for intent to do bodily harm and I said I did not "intend" to do it . . . I would could not be charged right?
Gee. And I read the local papers, press, people down there eventually said the numbers and SCOTUS were right and the whiners were wrong. Gore really lost. But those who keep this false interpretation of what went on in Florida seem to enjoy running with a good lie even when the falsehood of their claim gets to be common knowledge. Shows what their opinion of the intelligence of those they are trying to influence is.
A dreadfully crafted sentence.
What a Jerk, he ruled in a way you did not agree with he must be Scum!
If he feels he should stay as long as he is doing his job well, he could leave at anytime.
Our founding fathers produced the greatness within our founding documents because they were using intent to best interpret what our country needed. Their intent is what gave our founding documents the ability to live on for so many years. Their intent is what gave us the ability to change our founding documents if the voters believed those changes were needed and worthy to be added to our founding documents.
For any member of the legislative branch to marginalize intent, puts themselves outside the greatness which was inside our founding fathers. Intent is very important and without a great understanding of intent, you will never reach a professional level even close to our founding fathers. Intent makes great men(humans), and when you hide from your intent, or hide your intent, you become a much smaller person, far removed from our founding fathers.
But now DC wants to disenfranchise some voters. Especially people with different views!
How can Scalia even talk about the relevance of the Constitution when it's been totally trashed, particularly in recent years? Where's the authority for warrantless wiretaps, searches and seizures? The 2nd A says the right to firearms "shall not be infringed"? Has he ever found a basis for voting to infringe it? There's no constitutional authority for the "war on drugs" (TM). The list goes on and on.
Judical activism is rampant including at the USSC.
A corporation is an individual? How they came up with that by interpreting words is mind boggling.
Scalia is a thug in a robe and his lifetime appointment is a travesty.
This creep is so sick and self righteous and hypocritical. Talk about judicial activism, he takes the cake.
Yeah he is by far the worst judge ever... of what, what, he's just like the last one, and the one before that... and the one before that? Oh right.
I have a simple way for figuring out which way the current Supreme Court will vote: I figure out which of two sides in a case is the bigger @$$hole and has the most power, and that is usually the side that the Supreme Court will favor.
Example, say Satan tortures and murders workers at a soup kitchen. Supreme Court would rule in favor of Satan.
Every office in our bought out, financially corrupted government needs term limits, to limit the damage done by the arrogant fools that occupy them. You may occasionally "throw a baby out in the bathwater", but the babies are so few and far between it would be negligible.
What this country needs is public funding of all federal elections and no outside money involved. Only way to get the corporations and big money people out of it. Right now all politicians are subject to the whims of people who donate to their reelection campaigns and one party is being hel hostage by a lobbyist who had them all sign a document that they would never raise taxes. If they did they would be subject to being ousted by a person of grovers choice.
Scalia doesn't make a move without getting Dick Cheney's OK first. The lowest, most arrogant a#@hole the court has had in decades.
He is not doing a good job and should retire. Just that simple. Scalia had intent with Bush V Gore. His own intent! Term limits for the Supreme Court is a good thing. When you are in your late seventies you have served long enough. A 16 year limit would be enough. Times change and so should the court. Remember the Supreme Court justice who had to be wheeled in to vote and was asleep the whole time and he was 90!!
So, is that for all judges? Or just judges that make decisions you don't like?
I think you should read his words. But I think scope of his intent focuses the Supreme Court "Justices". Scalia has shown himself to be a hack, but I personally believe his age has little to do with it.
I really don't understand how he can separate one from the other. It seems to me that the text, unless clearly unambiguous (whatever that is) must me viewed in the context of a determination of what the legislature was trying to do. Is legislative history always definitive? No. However it seems to me that it is one factor in the determination, for example, of the scope of a law.
". . .fairest meaning of the text." As if this a$$wipe could EVER know what is the fairest meaning of the text. Furthermore, meaning of the text is inextricably entwined with intent. The two are inseparable. This moron is an associate justice?!?
Koch sucker.
If we go with the intent there would be no doubt;gay 'marraige' is a bastardization of the intent
As for his future, Justice Scalia, at age 76 the court's longest-serving member, says he intends to remain "as long as I think I'm doing it well."
Pack it in now because you have not done it well in quite some time. You have long since hit your plateau of mediocrity.
Well AWOL he is an American, so that means he hit that mark at birth right?
When is this republican shlll going to finally shut up and retire? It can't be soon enough.
There is a general breakdown in our judicial system. As example, a new Dallas story involving a lawsuit where the judge threatened the person with "death" in a civil lawsuit.
The case involves a lawyer billing scam supervised by a federal judge. In the apparent scam, a Dallas business owner (the "victim") had all possessions seized, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him to be an involuntary servant to the lawyers under “house arrest”. The business owner has been under this "servant" order for 10 months and is prohibited from owning any possessions, freely traveling, prohibited from working, etc...
LawInjustice dot com website has details about this disturbing case and some quotes from the judge:
THE COURT: "I'm telling you don't screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don't understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me."
THE COURT: "You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death"
None of the conservative Justices will retire as long as any Democrat is President. No liberal will retire when a Republican is in office. All we can hope for is a natural vacancy.
He died of a natural vacancy?
I would certainly love to talk to him on that notion. Is he talking about translating the wording with the correct historical contexts? Cause if he is not, then IMO, he is doing it wrong. If he is, then is that not also, at least partially trying to discern the intent o the laws author?
Gouranga, perhaps nothing is absolute, but you have to believe that the people who wrote these documents were educated enough to get their point across... If a law is so confusing that you have to guess what the intent was, perhaps that law/amendment should be changed by congress, into a very clear expectation of what we currently believe it means. For example the right to arms... If Americans really want that to mean we have the right to create militias, and not individual weapons they should amend it to say that as opposed to saying the intent was this or that. See, it is the job of congress to make laws clear, it is not the job of judges to read the tea leaves, if it is that confusing congress needs to clarify... the people we vote for... Not judges.
Scalia is dead wrong on this. He is using the Roman/English law approach. The laws are written with a statement of intent. Playing with the letter of the law and prior judicial decisions is how attorneys subvert the intent, but the Supreme Court is charged with a higher level of function. They take two oaths when they assume the mantle of Supreme Court Justice:
I, _____— ., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. And: I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as______________— according to my abilities and understanding agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The second oath above (the first is a 20TH century recent addition) clearly gets at intent and purpose of laws in charging the Justice with how to administer the laws.
Great post! Thank you-that says Scalia is just as wrong as I thought he was.
tbrownnjt--NJT? when things of letters never seem to go your way, isn't it time to review your value system? Surely not everyone is a crook out to do damage to you...
Using intent is just an excuse to make up whatever ruling you want. If the people that made the law had a specific intent they would have made that clear in the document. People who want to use intent, are essentially calling law makers stupid... Well, they are supposedly the best our country has to offer, but they were too stupid to write clearly enough for us to know what the intended purpose of this law was....
tom343-if you happen to come back to this discussion, I've no idea what you're referring to, as I simply praised the person's post. Could you clarify?