CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scalia says something dumb... again
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scalia says something dumb... again

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
Says government CANNOT be religion-neutral. Apparently slept through lecture on Amendment 1.

Quote:
NEW YORK -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday that a religion-neutral government does not fit with an America that reflects belief in God in everything from its money to its military.

"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," Scalia told an audience attending an interfaith conference on religious freedom at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue.

An outspoken conservative, Scalia joined a gathering that included the chief judge of New York state, Judith Kaye, a member of this Orthodox synagogue where the late Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo had worshipped.

The discussion in the century-old edifice was lively.

"I have spent many private hours with Justice Scalia _ in print," said Kaye, who has led New York's highest court for almost a dozen years since she was appointed by Gov. Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat.

Scalia, 68, addressed the topic of government and its relationship to religion.

In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word "God."

But, the justice asked, "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so."

Also participating in the three-hour session was Shearith Israel's senior rabbi, Marc Angel, as well as prominent members of New York's Protestant, Roman Catholic and Muslim clergy. Speakers included the Rev. James Forbes Jr. of Riverside Church, the Rev. Arthur Caliandro of the Marble Collegiate Church and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the New York-based American Sufi Muslim Association, whose aim is to foster an American-Muslim identity.

Scalia told them that while the church-and-state battle rages, the official examples of the presence of faith go back to America's Founding Fathers: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax-exemption for houses of worship _ and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Last year, Scalia removed himself from the Supreme Court's review of whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, after mentioning the case in a speech and complaining that courts are stripping God from public life.

"None of this is compatible with what we say when we express the so-called principle of neutrality," Scalia said.

He could be tapped as a possible nominee for chief justice should Chief Justice William Rehnquist step down because of his thyroid cancer.

Scalia was named to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Reagan.

Since then, Scalia _ a Catholic raised in Queens and father of nine children, one a priest _ has become an anti-abortion hero to many in the American political right and a leading conservative voice on the court.

An "originalist," Scalia believes in following the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, rather than interpreting it to reflect the changing times.

"Our Constitution does not morph," he said Monday, deadpanning, "As I've often said, I am an originalist, I am a textualist, but I am not a nut."

Earlier this year, Scalia cast one of two dissenting votes in a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that states may deny taxpayer-funded scholarships to divinity students.

At the time, Scalia wrote: "Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority."
God, Rehnquist looks like fucking John Marshall next to this tubby asshole.
post #2 of 9
I'd call him a fucking idiot, but based on what I have heard from him in arguments (he really likes to talk). I think I'll settle with zealot.
post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joker592
I'd call him a fucking idiot, but based on what I have heard from him in arguments (he really likes to talk). I think I'll settle with zealot.
I've been learning about how big of an idiot he was in my American Constitutional Law class. He never, EVER cites to case precedent in ANY of his decisions. He always ends up citing to the Federalist Papers (which aren't even federal law) because he believes that they give the best insight into the minds of the founding fathers.

Aside from the fact that the founding fathers INTENDED for the Constitution to change over time (Duh! That's what Amendments are for!) just because the Federalist Papers are good documents does NOT make them good basis for federal law!

It was awesome. Scalia had this one decision where all he did was cite to like 4 of the Federalist Papers, so one of the dissenting Justices said "Hell, I can do that too." so he wrote a dissenting opinion to Scalia's using nothing but the Federalist Papers for justification! Man, that was great. Proved how flaws a Texturalist approach is the constitution.
post #4 of 9
I actually hadn't noticed that about him. He is eloquent enough, and certainly mean enough which I think is pretty funny. How does he get away with using the Federalist papers and at the same time claiming to be a contructionists. As you said, it was fairly obvious that the Constitution was intended to be maliable.
post #5 of 9
Damn activist judges.
post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
Damn activist judges.
I don't have a problem with so-called "activist" judges (I find the term a bit silly since decision that a judge makes which changes things could be considered activist).

What I DO have a problem with are judges who base their decisions without adequate and proper usage of good constitutional law. Scalia is one of those judges. There are conservative judges on the court whom I respect because they base their decisions on legitimate constitutional scholarship, though this habit is becoming increasingly rare. Precedent is worth nothing in the modern supreme court.
post #7 of 9
The thing about an activist judge is that they don't actually exist. Sure there are judges who make somewhat radical decisions, although its rare, but they still depend on the court system to bring the case to them. Therefore they are not active.
post #8 of 9
the term activist judges makes me laugh.

I don't care if your a liberal, conservative or a mental insane judge you should uses the Consititution as the basis of your judgement.
post #9 of 9
I was being sarcastic.

"Activist judges" is a phrase conservatives use for judges who rule in ways that encourage society to become more liberal. But if a conservative judge does the same thing, they don't complain.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scalia says something dumb... again