And we thought justice Thomas was embarrassing! Scalia is out pimping a new book, so he's giving some interviews. As with most Republicans, he lacks compassion, the ability to reason well, and simply creates his own reality.
This imaginary justice, Scalia continued, announces that it turns out "'the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.' No kidding."
Well there you have it. To Antonin Scalia, putting aside his personal feelings to try and interpret the constitution to keep and progress our Democracy, need not be part of the decision making process. In fact, there is no decision making process, precedent means nothing, the constitution means whatever I want it to mean.
Doesn't this pretty much define what an activist judge is? Doesn't this pretty much give a judge the ability to make law, rather than just interpret it? And given decisions like Bush V Gore, and Citizens United... pretty much describe the process that the conservatives have been using to change the country? And doesn't it mean that a persons political leanings are the absolute defining factor as to how people with this twisted approach will perform on the court?
If anyone can interpret the constitution to mean "exactly what I think it ought to mean", than are there any qualifications that are needed to be a Supreme Court justice? Why don't we just hold a national lottery to fill Supreme Court seats?
More Scalia quotes below the fold.
"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.So all you lawyers who thought you could go to the Supreme Court and lay out a reasonable case, and the justices would actually listen and be open to persuasion, the jokes on you! You might as well be reading a phone book to Scalia, he's already got his mind made up on these major issues.
But his comment about homosexuality I found very interesting. Precedent doesn't mean anything to Scalia when it comes to commerce like Obamacare, but when it fits the needs of Scalia, he'll certainly quote legislative precedent. And according to Scalia, instead of talking about expanding rights for people, lets go back to making Homosexuals Criminals! But wait, why stop there? Slavery was legal when the constitution was written, and for many decades afterward, so why not go full Scalia?!
As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the ConstitutionSo if you don't like it, change it! You see, if you don't like corporations buying up politicians by flooding their campaigns with money, you can pass a law against it, just like Montana did. Too bad, Scalia says that's unconstitutional, despite numerous courts in the past upholding such laws. So change the constitution, an extremely difficult task. Nice try, but Saclia says he can interpret the constitution to be anything he wants it to be, so good luck trying to word that amendment in a way Saclia can't reinterpret it.
What the congress and President can't do, the Supreme Court can. The power these people have can't be overstated, and the abuse of that power by people like Scalia, can do damage for decades!
GOTV! GOTV! GOTV!