Justice Antonin Scalia once stated, "If you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year... If you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society - if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask."
Justice Scalia is one of the Supreme Court's most vocal originalists. Originalists are sometimes called "textualists" or "literalists". They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Framers. For some reason, such a view horrifies liberals. In fact, liberals are scared to death that Judge Samuel Alito might turn out to be an originalist.
Judge Alito, President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, begins his inquisition this week; with Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy playing the role of collective Torquemados. Of course, they will be attempting to trip up Judge Alito on the issue of abortion, NSA wiretapping and the like; but underlying that whole line of assault is the question of whether Judge Alito is an originalist.
Why does that word frighten liberals so? Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal's liberal if there ever was one, explained in a speech given at Harvard Law School. He said, "...textualist and originalist doctrines may themselves produce seriously harmful consequences...."
Seriously harmful consequences according to whom? Why the leftist elites who know what is best for us, that's who. You see, leftists believe the law is nothing more than a tool for them to achieve the social objectives they believe should control society.
That is why, when they talk in terms of judges, they talk about whether the judge ruled in favor of the government, big corporations, "the little guy" etc. Everything to them is about furthering the agenda, and they believe everyone else operates in the same way. In fact, leftists didn't know what to make of Chief Justice Roberts' statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said, "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."
That is what an originalist believes. The Constitution is paramount. His obligation is to the Constitution, the actual words, as written. Where the Constitution says that the executive power lies with the President, the executive power lies with the President. Since the Constitution grants the power to legislate to the Congress, originalists believe that courts shouldn't legislate.
Originalists don't make allowances for liberal elites to engage in social engineering. Originalists don't care what the law in France or Belgium is when the case involves the law of the United States.
Leftist elites don't trust the masses they profess to love. You see the masses do stupid things like vote for Republicans, support tax cuts, oppose gay marriage and believe that parents should be told if their minor daughter is about to have an abortion. Liberals can't allow that. Enlightened elites must make the rules.
You see, the Framers believed in limited government, state's rights and community control of values and standards. The essence of original intent is trust in the people and distrust of the Federal government. Of course, to people like Justice Breyer, that is asking for "harmful consequences".
For those of us who believe in originalist thinking, trusting the Constitution and trusting the people is the essence of who we are as Americans. We're a scary bunch. Aren't we?
6 comments:
I think your ideas make a lot of sense, a whole lot more than just winging it which is what the liberals want.
I believe that there needs to be a defined basis for our government, clearly defined and consistent. Once you have that then you can legislate and execute and judge from a firm base. If you just wing it, then whatever feels good or whatever you happen to think on that particular day will become the law of the land. That is not good. Suppose the judge had a terrible argument over the breakfast table. If that judge carries that attitude over to the courtroom, then his or her decisions will be biased based on the judicial version of PMS. That is not good for the country.
Essentially what I see with Judge Roberts and Judge Alito makes me think that once again Bush has stymied the liberals. He has told us what he wanted in a judge and he has appointed that person. Good for him. Alito looks damned good to me.
In the first place, I think Justice Scalia is the most intelligent justice on the court, and knows the Constitution to the last word, and wants to live and judge by it. So, therefore, I am an originalists, too..And I have a question for any liberal out there.What do you want for this country? You complain about the conservatives, but have no ideas of your own but to tear them down..What are the positives in your wants for this country? I have never known, still don't..That's why I vote Republican.
Count me in as an "originalist" or "literalist." Justice Breyer may think of the Constitution as a mere "guide" that he can use, abuse or disregard at his leisure. The Constitution is the BEDROCK our laws are framed in. It is unchanging; it is NOT "fluid;" it is the PARAMOUNT document SC Justices MUST respect and use in deciding cases. If Breyer and other liberal Justices can simply "ignore" the Constitution, then that in itself will produce "serious and harmful consequences." Breyer cannot see the forest for the trees.
There is no doubt in my mind we NEED more conservative Justices on the SC.
A wonderful commentary and it describes exactly the agenda the liberals have for our USSC justices.
They want Alito to be another swing voter like O'Conner, but he can't be anyone other than himself. We don't pick judges just because we want them to be like the judge we are replacing. Schumer, Durbin, Leahy and Kennedy want to call all the shots, which are nothing more than what the liberal elitist want.
A very good article indeed, Lone! Keep it up.
From one 'literalist' to another....thank you for an excellent description of the word.
Cuffie
The irony, of course, is that when an argument regarding the Constitution is made which they oppose, the Left can become strict literalists.
Post a Comment