Skip to main content

View Diary: On Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution? (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The one thing you haven't responded to is (none)
    Scalia's claim that changing law through the legislator is better than changing law through the judiciary. What is wrong with simply passing an amendment that prohibits gender discrimination? Why is change  through the judiciary a better approach.

    True, Scalia uses such a reading when it benefits him and throws it out when attacking laws he dislikes, but hardly anyone would say that a judicial expansion of rights is superior to a legislative expansion of rights. The latter approach, if anything, guarantees more individuals have a role in the process and are more likely to support the new rights.

    •  Because rights should not be protected by majority (none)
      ... they should be protected from the majority. Otherwise, why even bother with a Bill of Rights?

      Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say... (from "Creatures of Light and Darkness", R. Zelazny)

      by SadEagle on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 06:11:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site