Is Justice Scalia a Renegade Judge?

So...I'm sitting here reading about something I've never read before. A Supreme Court Judge talking about Judicial rulings on television news outlets.

This seems to politicize a non-political element of the US Government; almost in a way where it appears that a Supreme Court Justice is actively campaigning for candidates or attempting to influence political agendas.

Some may say...this makes the work of the Supreme Court more accessible to the People and allows the voter to better understand the work of a branch of the government that is often not a part of our daily lives.

On the other hand it may be viewed as a judge attempting to influence the type and content of legislation; a role reserved to Congress...an equal partner in government.

A quote of interest in one of the articles below:

"Of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I've tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you that. Unless you think I'm a fool."

Has Scalia gone off on this adventure, appearing on television talking about the decision of his co-workers, to influence the choice a future President may make concerning his replacement? Is this a new role of Supreme Court Judges...to determine who sits on the court in the future, after they've retired or died?

Sandra Day O’Connor ... emphasize to the Senate Panel that federal judges owe their only allegiance to the Constitution.

If what Justice O'Connor has said about Judges is true, then why does it seem that Scalia's allegiance seems to be about his personal beliefs?

www.inquisitr.com...

news.yahoo.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Every Justice has his own philosophy of the Constitution. President's always ask judicial nominees about it in depth. The President tends to appoint Justices who have a similar judicial philosophy. Some Justices take the Constitution more or less as it was originally written and intended, others like to play around with it.

Scalia is just saying what everybody has known for years and years, he is more of an originalist than a player, and he'd like to see another originalist take his place. I'm missing the big problem here.

Sometimes I wonder if these Judges realize things about the Constitution they say they have allegiance to which aren't immediately noticeable.

For example:

Do the Judges realize that the authority granted to Congress to 'Raise and Support Armies' flows directly and logically from the People's 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

If the Judges do realize this, which I assume they must, then they also know that any attempt by the Congress to infringe upon or strongly regulate the right of the People to keep and bear arms naturally leads to the Congress inhibiting its own authority to raise and support Armies and the Presidents responsibility to execute his office.

It just seems kind of odd to me that a Supreme Court Justice is on television trying to convince voters to elect lawmakers that will dismantle America's ability to defend itself.

When Scalia became a Judge was this is plan the whole time, to dismantle the American system and throw open the gates for all of our enemies?

reply to post by charles1952


Was that a responsibility given to appointees to the Supreme Court by the Constitution...to influence the President and Congress and voters concerning their replacement? If he wants an originalist, whatever that is, shouldn't he resign his post and become a lobbyist or activist or something?

I'm really curious and want to learn about what people think a Judges role is while sitting on the bench.

Originally posted by charles1952
Every Justice has his own philosophy of the Constitution. President's always ask judicial nominees about it in depth. The President tends to appoint Justices who have a similar judicial philosophy. Some Justices take the Constitution more or less as it was originally written and intended, others like to play around with it.

Scalia is just saying what everybody has known for years and years, he is more of an originalist than a player, and he'd like to see another originalist take his place. I'm missing the big problem here.

The problem here is that he is talking about the second amendment as something that is debatable, when it is not. The founding fathers wrote it to be very succinct and specific. Any justice even making mention about monkeying with the first or second amendments, I have a problem with that.

I don't know if you all were taught this in school, but I was: The First and Second Amendments are collectively (or were) referred to as "the pillars of freedom." Either falls, freedom falls. THAT is the problem here.

reply to post by michaelbrux

Dear michaelbrux,

That was an excellent point! Something like that makes me think there is a chance that ATS can be saved as a half-way intelligent site. You've made an old man happy.

I suspect that, while they may recognize that in the abstract, they're probably thinking that Congress hasn't been having any trouble getting an army up 'til now, and if we rule that only government employees can have guns (soldiers), they'll still get their army.

I can't see this Court going back on the gun rights cases of the last ten years, but if there were two or three Justices added who believed that Aurora could have been prevented with stricter gun bans, and the Constitution is designed to protect life, then we might be in real trouble.

If the Judges do realize this, which I assume they must, then they also know that any attempt by the Congress to infringe upon or strongly regulate the right of the People to keep and bear arms naturally leads to the Congress inhibiting its own authority to raise and support Armies and the Presidents responsibility to execute his office.

I see this more as a fall back position to be used when the 2nd Amendment gets destroyed.

Really great post! I'm still smiling. Thank you, thank you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by AwakeinNM

It seemed to me, after reading the article, that he was saying there would be debates in the future about what limitations could be placed on the Second Amendment. As much as I don't like it, I have to agree with him. One of his poiints was based on "bear arms." He seemed to think that meant "If you can't carry it, you can't have it." That may be wrong, but I can see it as the focus of a debate. Certainly there are restrictions on gun ownership now, I would suspect the issues aren't permanently settled.

As one example, does a citizen have a right to mount a firearm on a drone? (Assuming it can be fired remotely.) I don't know, I've never thought about it, but it will come up some time.

Scalia, or whoever, won't be able to control the President's choice much at all. The best he can do is to retire when there is a President in office that may think the way he does, then cross his fingers and hope.

reply to post by charles1952


thanks for the support.

i've been thinking lately that the Bill of Rights was added to make in evident that every authority granted to the Government in the Constitution is sourced from the People for who's benefit it was created. If the People don't possess those rights, how could the Government they created be given authority or keep the authority which is based on those rights? What's the source?

Once a way is found to strip the people of their rights its only a matter of time before the created thing cannibalizes itself and then ceases to exist.

The concept of Government is being perverted, its being viewed as something separate from ourselves, when in fact it is and should be viewed and understood as an outward projection of ourselves.

Unfortunately, Scalia seems to be taking a lead role in the media space to hasten the degradation of the system he is sworn to uphold.

before I go to sleep and think about this more, I want to say...

that all of these interpretations of the Constitution serve one purpose and one purpose only.

that is to turn a created thing into the creator and the creator into a created thing.

did man create God? No!

but for the first time, i can see that many are trying to make it seem that way.

reply to post by michaelbrux


Supreme Court justices can speak to whomever they wish, even if that includes their opinions on recent rulings. There is nothing that prevents them from doing so and the only reason it appears that way is based on the people on the bench and their own standards.

If a case comes before the court where a justice has previously commented on, the recusal process starts and we go from there. Aside from that I wish the US Supreme Court would allow cameras / audio in the courtroom so we can see how things work at that level. A lot of people don't know that the only manner in which a person can appeal a court ruling is if there is a technicality / mistake made. At the Federal levels it really delves into the Constitution and the effects on people (IE was the law this person was charged under valid under the constitution or does it violate some aspect of it?).

Our judicial system is not supposed to be secret.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

It seemed to me, after reading the article, that he was saying there would be debates in the future about what limitations could be placed on the Second Amendment. As much as I don't like it, I have to agree with him. One of his poiints was based on "bear arms." He seemed to think that meant "If you can't carry it, you can't have it." That may be wrong, but I can see it as the focus of a debate. Certainly there are restrictions on gun ownership now, I would suspect the issues aren't permanently settled.

As one example, does a citizen have a right to mount a firearm on a drone? (Assuming it can be fired remotely.) I don't know, I've never thought about it, but it will come up some time.

Scalia, or whoever, won't be able to control the President's choice much at all. The best he can do is to retire when there is a President in office that may think the way he does, then cross his fingers and hope.

As I understand Scalia's argument regarding the phrase "bear arms" to mean that the weapon that a person has the right to own has to be able to be carried by an adult. That argument is invalid because the federal government already bans fully automatic weapons, many of which meet Scalia's definition of a weapon that is able to be carried by an adult. I think he is splitting hairs much in the same way that anti-gun people like to split hairs on the definitions of "militia" and "the people".

I've also heard that his statements might have been made to goad the left into launching the gun control debate and screwing themselves out of congressional seats. That is a possibility also.

reply to post by AwakeinNM

Dear AwakeinNM,

I think your interpretation of Scalia's argument is right on the money. I think he meant that this was one way to eliminate a certain class of weapons: artillery, tanks, missiles, and similar monstrosities. For the stuff a person could carry, there are some restrictions allowed by the Constitution (or the Court's interpretation of it) already.

I believe he is predicting that there will be fights in the future over the Constituionality of those and other restrictions as localities try to ban guns in sneaky ways. He may have been thinking of the Chicago and D.C. restrictions which were found to be unconstitutional.

And, unfortunately, due to technological progress there may be weapons we haven't seen yet.

I think he's asking us to be on guard and prepare. Of course, on any of this I could be wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Xcathdra


i'm not trying to suggest Scalia is a criminal for discussing the work of the Supreme Court on a popular Sunday morning talk show, i think its strange that he may be the first sitting Supreme Court Justice in 236 years to behave in this manner.

Possibly, perhaps, being that Scalia is only a 1st generation American, he hasn't yet grown to understand the sanctity of his position within our society, or perhaps, he holds it in low regard and he's decided put his own unique spin on what he thinks is the role of the Supreme Court within American society. For him, its obviously a political position where Judges seek to influence voters and make the works of the Supreme Court more accessible to the people so as to influence the composition of the Supreme Court.

Do you know why Justices on that court get a term of Life? So that they can work above Politics is what I was told. maybe Judges should be appointed to terms like the other politicians.

on the upside, how would I know about his controversial and incorrect opinions concerning the 2nd Amendment if not for him appearing on a that talk show? i guess my feelings are mixed.

all that aside, his purposely incorrect interpretation of the meaning of bear arms makes him suspicious...

all the information required to interpret the 2nd Amendment is contained with the text of the 2nd Amendment.

we bear the arms which are necessary for a free state;

for him to add words and ideas of his own to the Constitution in order to justify the creation of laws which may violate the Constitution should be considered treason...don't you all agree? I didn't see the word carry in the Constitution...did any of you? if so, can someone please point it out?

it seems obvious what is happening here. Scalia has become like Rust to the American system and he has every intention of doing all he can within his life to degrade this system and before he's gone he wants to have himself replaced on the Court by someone that will continue his work degrading the American system.

reply to post by michaelbrux


Scalia is four raccoons in a robe.

Not anymore he's not.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Scalia was not a progressive he was a conservative judge, he was not very happy with the way politics were been used in the nation and against the constitution.

Sad that he is death, once the supreme court gets full of progressive the constitution will mean nothing.

a reply to: marg6043

Scalia suggested in 2012, when this thread was authored, that he should play a role in choosing his successor.

The Constitution says that the President nominates Justices when a vacancy occurs who is then confirmed by the Senate.

Scalia was far from being reconciled to the Constitution.

and the Constitution of the United States doesn't require confirmation of its meaning from its employees.

I'd bet its weird for people to have to come to terms with New Power.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Obama kind of mangled Scalias name during the brief news conference.
Pronounced it so that it sounded like Justice Schoolhein.
Might be nothing, or might be a clue as to Scalias media role.