I just came back from listening to Scalia.
So many things to talk about. As we all know Scalia is a fan of "Originialism." He took great lengths to strike against the "Living" Constitution theory. However we had to take his word on what the Living interpretation was, from my extremely limited knowledge it seemed like Scalia was setting up strawmen.
I'll start with something I agree with him on. I am assuming he presented the case correctly, which is hard to do seeing as how Rhenquist has completely made up history in the past to support his viewpoint. So assuming he told the truth about the case, he was talking about adding time to crimes because of additional factors. Apparently theseadditional factors do not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they merely have to be beyond a perponderance of doubt.
He mentioned that the penalty for all felonies used to be death. So does this mean he supports the death penalty for all felonies now? After all, that was the original punishment.
He has this belief that people used to respect the constitution and how today the people have not, classic "good old days" syndrome.
He refered to Clarence Thomas as "Brother Thomas" not once, but twice. My black friend was kind of put off by this (as was I).
He mentioned "sandle wearing weirdos" with disapproval and recieved a thunderous applause.
When asked about the dismal pay of judges he talked about how the whole thing was politicized and how "they hate us." He decried how this low pay was preventing "normal people" who were raising familes from serving as judges. Whatever Scalia, you have 9 children and that ain't normal.
Once he was talking about the living constitution and mentioned that it has no flesh, no bone. Apparently he's too originalist and pedantic to understand the concept of "metaphor."
I believe he's kind of like the prophet Isaiah, he's always preaching destruction if we don't follow his advice, the country is all going to hell because we turned out backs on the founders. Frankly it gets tiring after a while. Get a new shtick.
He begged the audience to "think of the children," that they were all becoming "living constitution"ists. Please dear god think of the children!!
He gave no indication of how you determine what the "original" meaning of the constitution is. After all we cannot know the inner thought processes of the people who write the law. We can't use anything extant from the constitution to determine whatit means because if that's what they meant then by god they should have put it in. He weasled out of this tough question. "If they didn't mean for it to be broad why didn't they write it in a narrow fashion?"
He decried the senatorial litmus tests of judges, yet he could not reconcile this with the requirment that the selections must recieve the "advice and concent" of the senate. If senators don't want to concent because they disagree with a justice there is nothing in the constitution preventing it. Sorry Nino, you are not being an Originalist.
He engaged in eliminationist rhetoric. He talked about how you can't shoot a cannon with buckshot in a faculty lounge at law schools and hit an originalist anymore. He concluded with the word ev
He does not believe in the right to end ones own life.
He seemed to have a persecution complex. It's possible this was him attempting to be humorous, but hegave out these vibes so much that he's either got a bad sense of humor or he's got one.
He talked about the "equal protection" clause and how he used it to make sure all the votes were counted the same way in Florida in 2000. Too bad that's not Originalist. They didn't talk about hanging chads back when the 14th amendment was passed.
He evaded on the application of Full Faith & Credit w/ respect to gay marriage, probably because that's a case that will be before him in the near future.
He got an overwhelming standing ovation. Poor disillusioned folks. I think I typed up all my notes, I hope you enjoyed reading this.