When thinking about your vote in November please take a moment to consider the SCOTUS. Do we want more Justices like Antonin Scalia? If it were up to him under his philosophy of “constitutional originalism” women would not have the vote, slavery would still be legal and the list goes on. That said, he has also sided with some of this administrations worst positions.

Concrete interpretation: U.S. Supreme Court justice dismisses notion of ‘living Constitution'
By TRISTAN SCOTT of the Missoulian

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned about the perils of a “living Constitution” Wednesday in a speech at the University of Montana, distinguishing his judicial role as a constitutional interpreter, not a framer.

Scalia, 72, who grew up in New York, typifies the high court's core conservative philosophy of “constitutional originalism” - a strict interpretation of that document as opposed to a “living Constitution” that is constantly evolving. His remarks drew applause and laughter from audience members in a packed University Theatre. The speech marked the 10th installment of UM's Jones-Tamm Judicial Lecture Series, and is the fifth appearance by a U.S. Supreme Court justice on the Missoula campus in a decade.

In his afternoon speech, as well as during an earlier question-and-answer session with UM School of Law students, the jurist trained his focus on a favorite subject - constitutional interpretation, and its controversy within the Supreme Court.
*
“Every time a new right is invented under the living Constitution, democracy is minimalized, federalism is minimalized,” he said, calling the Constitution “the rock to which the polity is anchored.”

Scalia rejected the notion of a “living Constitution” and demurred at judicial decisions being tailored to meet an “evolving standard of decency.”

The Constitution, he said, must remain static, while responsible judicial interpretation of the legal ballast should consider “what the people thought at the time.”

“The disagreement, believe it or not, has nothing to do with politics, whether you're Republicans or Democrats; it really doesn't even have much to do with whether you're conservative or liberal,” Scalia said. “The fault line in constitutional interpretation is between those who think that the Constitution is static - it does not change, it means today what it meant when the people adopted it - and those who think that the Constitution changes from generation to generation, and it is the job of the Supreme Court to announce the changes, to say when old rights have gone out of existence and new ones have come into existence.”

Scalia told an audience of about 600 people, including members of Montana's state and federal judiciary, that the Constitution should not change with the whims of each successive court. Instead, justices should apply a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he said, providing the only sure criterion to prevent judges “from doing whatever suits them.”

“A Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake, it's a legal document,” he said, criticizing the Supreme Court for amending the document every term. “It's become a mini-constitutional convention every time you appoint a new nominee to the Supreme Court.”

About 150 students gathered Wednesday morning in the basement of the law library, where they peppered Scalia with questions, ranging from his strict interpretation of the right to bear arms to his bewilderment of Indian law - “Indian law is the most difficult, confusing area of law. We have largely made it up” - and his disapproval of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion.

Scalia, a staunch proponent of textualism, was careful to distinguish the original meaning of the Constitution from the framers' original intent, and struck down the notion that he was a strict constructionist, a philosophy that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Scalia said his philosophy as a textualist and an originalist actually facilitates democratic change, and does not restrain flexibility.

While some Supreme Court justices maintain that the death penalty violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Scalia said the country's founders wrote no such thing, and the issue should be dealt with by individual states, not by a federal body.

“You don't need a constitution to change, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box,” he said. “As new rights never identified by the people have been created by the Supreme Court, the scope of democracy has narrowed.

“It's something we should be very reluctant to tamper with,” he told the students. “We've been living under the strength of this document a century longer than Italy has been a nation. So don't mess with it.”

Scalia, who graduated from Harvard Law School, was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Reagan and joined the court in September 1986.

He is a former law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago and was a visiting professor at both Georgetown University and Stanford University.

Although Wednesday's lecture was open to the public and took place at a public university, Scalia asked organizers that his appearance be treated as a Supreme Court hearing, with all the attendant media restrictions the high court historically has placed on such events. Event organizers said still photography would be allowed at the beginning and the end of the jurist's speech, but toward the end of his remarks, Scalia paused and told a pod of crouching photographers that they were “a distraction.”

We need Nine justices like Scalia.

Really? Because the Group think in the Bush Admin. has really done so much good for our nation.

So Spidercmb you favor slavery, poll taxes and only allowing white men to vote?

That's scary

No, that's Libel.

The Amendments are part of the Constitution. To pretend that Scalia believes that the Amendments don't belong in the constitution is idiocy.

Scalia doesn't believe that there are Miranda rights in the constitution, he's correct.

Scalia doesn't believe that there is a right to privacy in the constitution, he's correct.

Scalia doesn't believe that there is a right to abortions in the constitution, he's correct.

Lie all you want about what he believes and what I believe, it doesn't matter to me. You have my permission to continue lying about me, because it will just make you look more ridiculous than you already do.

Scalia doesn't believe that there is a right to privacy in the constitution, he's correct.


So I guess the 4th just doesn't exist then.

That refers to privacy within one's own home.

I'm referring to the "right to privacy" that was used to overturn a law making Condoms illegal in Connecticut. (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT) Now I agree that condoms should be legal, but I don't see how an Amendment against search and seizure could possibly apply to buying condoms from a drug store. Or a woman killing the baby growing inside her body.

If there is a "right to privacy", then what does it cover? "Sir, there were screams heard from your house and you are covered in blood...where is your wife?" "I demand my right to privacy!" "Sorry to have bothered you sir"

The "Right to privacy" is pure lunacy, it's subjectively enforced and therefore NOT GOOD LAW. In fact, it's not law at all. The "Right to privacy" is a gestalt of 4 or 5 amendments and doesn't take into account their original meanings or intents.

This is comical...like that would ever happen.

Talk about being hysterical...I also hope we get more like Scalia...he upholds the constitution & doesn't legislate from the bench.

That's the only thing wrong with America.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


How is this not describing a right of the people to their privacy?

Lots of states pass stupid laws, like in Kansas it's illegal to spit on the side walk or have vanilla ice cream with Cherry pie.

I could care less about the stupid condom issue, it's small beans in comparison. When someone excerising their rights, infringes on the rights of another, then they have excused themselves of using those rights to cover up their misdeed, in the case of your blood covered husband. That's what the probable cause laws most places have on their books.

Besides that, the founders forsaw the freakish overreaching that some would do to justify their rights over the rights of another, thats why they wrote this one:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The utilization of privacy is the only reason that our 1st revolution was even capable of success.

Or do you think that the Founders were just walking around carrying placards declaring their intentions?