See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia Thinks George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales Are Idiots
Source:
Worldnetdaily and Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/14/D8FP4G40E.html
Published: Feb 14, 2006
Author: By JONATHAN EWING
Post Date: 2006-02-15 22:49:32 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: Gonzales, Supreme, Justice
Views: 32
Comments: 2
Link: BUSH'S COURT JESTER Americans don't need black-robed justices divining the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution was written by our founding fathers as a document that could be understood by ordinary citizens without law degrees from Harvard or Yale – or even in spite of such credentials. We have allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked into believing that we are too dumb to understand the basic law of our land – laws that were well-understood 200 years ago by farmers, not just lawyers. We don't need legal high priests to bring us into relationship with the intent of the framers. Their words, their arguments and their straightforward writings are still around for all of us to examine and analyze for ourselves. Did the founding fathers really intend for a handful of unaccountable judges to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat? Of course not. The Constitution itself provides the only mechanism for amending the document. Did the founding fathers ever believe that an elite corps of specially trained attorneys would be necessary to interpret the Constitution? Of course not. In fact, every elected official in Washington swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, an act that would be meaningless if only the justices were capable of understanding it and interpreting it. Did the founding fathers ever intend for the Constitution to be a "living" document whose meaning changed with the times? Of course not. That's what the rule of law vs. the rule of men is all about." George W. Bush: "Our Living Constitution" Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' Is the President above the law? Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution' By JONATHAN EWING People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says. In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended." "Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory. According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs. Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution." "That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break." "But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things." Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court." "They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said. Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.
"The man charged by President Bush with screening potential U.S. Supreme Court justice nominees believes the Constitution is a living document and that only the nine black-robed brethren have sufficient understanding of the document to explain to the people what it means. This should be an astonishing and disturbing revelation from Judge Alberto Gonzales, counsel to the president, for all those citizens who voted for Bush...Asked why the president has signed seemingly unconstitutional legislation over and over again during his first year and a half in office, Gonzales explained that it is up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone to determine what actions of government are constitutional. "The Supreme Court tells us what the Constitution says and means," he said. ..Gonzales let it be known he believes the Supreme Court actually makes law through its precedent-setting rulings. If this were true, of course, the Supreme Court would be the most powerful and least accountable of all three branches of the federal government.
"That prompted Russert to ask: "Senator Roberts, let me ask you a very serious question. Do you believe that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to do anything he believes is necessary to protect the country?" To which Roberts replied: "Yes." Roberts later said he believed the President's authority was "above laws passed by Congress." In other words, George W. Bush is a dictator with absolute authority and no one, not the law and certainly not Congress, has the power to question or override that authority."
Associated Press Writer
February 14, 2006 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Scalia was long rumored to be bumped up to Chief Justice once Rehnquist left the bench. Now we know why that never materialized, eh?
wait now, Uncle Bill, palo said that was clinton's intention, not george w's!
#2. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
In other words, George W. Bush is a dictator with absolute authority and no one, not the law and certainly not Congress, has the power to question or override that authority."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest