You have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about. None.
Go reread Article III, which I'm guessing you've never read in the first place. The only thing the Supreme Court is empowered to do by Article III is to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.
The rule of law is iron-clad for a reason. The founding fathers didn't write the document and say "Well, there it is...and you know what it means? Whatever you think it means." It is pretty straight-forward on what the government can and cannot do. There is no power of interpretation granted to the Supreme Court to redefine it as often as they see fit. They are only allowed to use the Constitution against future law...not say "Well, today we think this is what the Constitution means." In short, the courts are not authorized by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. They interpret the laws as written against the Constitution. Big difference. I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Actually you have no clue what you're talking about as always.
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
Progressivism, by definition, is post-constitutional.
The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, so of course 'progressives' don't like it...or call it 'outdated'. They hate and attack everything that stands in the way of their radical agenda - just like you and your monkey locked up in the Rubber Room do here.
Lost in the entire debate is the fact the Constitution is indeed a "living and and breathing document" through the amendment process. The only catch being is new amendments require large majorities in Congress and state legislatures, which of course 'progressives' never have. Instead, 'progressives' prefer to govern by the "51% democracy" rule and appoint radical judges who rubber-stamp their radical agenda. That's how Obamacare was shoved down our throats.
There's nothing remotely lawful, constitutional, ethical or American about modern 'progressivism'
'Progressives' are lawless Marxists through and through.
Judges aren't Gods. They are not immune from the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. A judge cannot declare something 'constitutional' just because it happens to coincide with their personal feelings or social values.
That's what left wing judicial activism is, a clear overreach and abuse of power.
Like this stupid Marxist c-u-n-t:
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,"
-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Actually, Scalia and Thomas agree with everything I've said.
You're too dumb to understand legal theory and constitutional law, just as you're too dumb to understand economics and differ to "smart people like Paul Krugman" and the Worst President Ever ("the epitome of perfection").
This why you're a non-thinking feeling-centric left wing loon that nobody takes seriously. lol
Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law
Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.
“My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult,” Scalia said.
Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning, Scalia said.
“Of course its provisions have to be applied to new phenomena” like the radio and the Internet, he said. “It is essential to originalism, as it is not to so-called ‘evolutionary constitutional jurisprudence,’ to know the original meaning of constitutional provisions.
“I deny the premise that law has nothing to do with historical inquiry,” Scalia said, dismissing critics' assertions that inquiry into the past has nothing to do with law. “Historical inquiry has nothing to do with the law only if the original meaning is irrelevant.”
Even the most ardent non-originalist will have to resort to historical inquiry at times to understand legal concepts like the writ of habeas corpus or cases of admiralty, he said.
Scalia pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court case in which several D.C. residents challenged the District’s ban on handguns and restrictions on other firearms. Defenders of the law said the right to “bear arms” as outlined in the Second Amendment had an exclusively military meaning, but a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court showed the meaning was different by looking at historical texts.
The right to have arms for personal use for self-defense was regarded as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, Scalia said.
The prologue of the Second Amendment, “a well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free state,” could not be reconciled with the personal right to keep and bear arms unless one had the historical knowledge behind it. In England “the Stuart kings in had destroyed the people’s militia by disarming those whom they disfavored.”
Critics of originalism exaggerate the difficulty of determining original meaning, Scalia said.
It’s true that originalists don’t always agree, Scalia said, noting that at times he and Justice Clarence Thomas — perhaps the “only other thorough-going originalist on the court” — disagreed.
But in most cases, especially controversial ones, the originalist point of view is clear, Scalia said. No provision of the Constitution guaranteed the right to abortion, homosexual sodomy or assisted suicide, and nothing prohibited the death penalty, he said.
“All these questions pose enormous difficulty for non-originalists, who must agonize over what the modern Constitution ought to mean with regard to each of these subjects, and then agonize over the very same questions five or 10 years later, because times change,” he said.
During the last assisted suicide case, a majority of the court said it was “not prepared” to announce a constitutional right to what at the time was universally criminalized conduct.
“Stay tuned,” Scalia said.
Similarly, in the course of 16 years, the court changed its decision that juvenile capital punishment was permissible and declared it cruel and unusual punishment.
“I will stipulate that [originalism] is not perfect,” he said. But “in ease of lawyerly application, never mind legitimacy and predictability, it far surpasses the competition.”
Lawyers “are not trained to be moral philosophers,” which is what it takes to determine whether there should be a right to abortion or assisted suicide. “History is a rock-solid science compared to moral philosophy,” Scalia said.
In the past few decades the court has been the beneficiary of a growing body of scholarship in history and constitutional legal history. Judges today have no shortage of secondary literature to sort through, Scalia said, including thorough amicus briefs — “sometimes too thorough.”
Twenty years ago amicus briefs were unreliable in their spare analysis of textual and historical meaning, Scalia said.
By the time Heller came to the court in 2008, the mass of briefing was “nothing short of spectacular,” and filled over five volumes in the Supreme Court library. Historical details were the “heart and soul” of the briefing, Scalia said.
Although briefs now address the originalist approach, Scalia said many briefs are not helpful, including those from trade associations, which seem designed to “assure the association members that their staff is on the job.” Academic briefs written by a small number of faculty that are “circulated like petitions” and signed by a large number of faculty often have a “pretense to scholarly impartiality.”
“Disinterested scholarship and advocacy do not mix well,” he said. But the raw materials in such briefs “can vastly improve the quality and accuracy of originalist decisions.”
At least one critic has accused originalists of practicing “law office history” — selecting data favorable to the position being advanced without concern for contrary information.
“To equate chambers’ history with law office history is profoundly ignorant,” he said. In the case of Heller, “If a contest seems one-sided, and I think it does, it’s only because the historical evidence favoring response was overwhelming.”
Historians who have published serious studies on the subject agree that the right to bear arms has long been understood as an individual right, Scalia said. And though historians can provide background information on such matters, judges are the legal experts.
“Ultimately it is the judges’ call,” he said. “Figuring out the meaning of legal texts is judges’ work.”
Originalism is not a guarantee against judicial abuse, Scalia admitted.
“But originalism does not invite him to make the law what he thinks it should be, nor does it permit him to distort history with impunity,” he said. The honest originalist will sometimes or often reach results he does not personally favor. “All of this cannot be said of the constitutional consequentialists.
“If ideological judging is the malady, the avowed application of such personal preferences will surely hasten the patient’s demise, and the use of history is far closer to being the cure than being the disease.”
Justice Antonin Scalia 
+ share Contact: Mary Wood |
Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.
“My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult,” Scalia said.
Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning, Scalia said.
“Of course its provisions have to be applied to new phenomena” like the radio and the Internet, he said. “It is essential to originalism, as it is not to so-called ‘evolutionary constitutional jurisprudence,’ to know the original meaning of constitutional provisions.
“I deny the premise that law has nothing to do with historical inquiry,” Scalia said, dismissing critics' assertions that inquiry into the past has nothing to do with law. “Historical inquiry has nothing to do with the law only if the original meaning is irrelevant.”
Even the most ardent non-originalist will have to resort to historical inquiry at times to understand legal concepts like the writ of habeas corpus or cases of admiralty, he said.
Scalia pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court case in which several D.C. residents challenged the District’s ban on handguns and restrictions on other firearms. Defenders of the law said the right to “bear arms” as outlined in the Second Amendment had an exclusively military meaning, but a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court showed the meaning was different by looking at historical texts.
The right to have arms for personal use for self-defense was regarded as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, Scalia said.
The prologue of the Second Amendment, “a well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free state,” could not be reconciled with the personal right to keep and bear arms unless one had the historical knowledge behind it. In England “the Stuart kings in had destroyed the people’s militia by disarming those whom they disfavored.”
Critics of originalism exaggerate the difficulty of determining original meaning, Scalia said.
It’s true that originalists don’t always agree, Scalia said, noting that at times he and Justice Clarence Thomas — perhaps the “only other thorough-going originalist on the court” — disagreed.
But in most cases, especially controversial ones, the originalist point of view is clear, Scalia said. No provision of the Constitution guaranteed the right to abortion, homosexual sodomy or assisted suicide, and nothing prohibited the death penalty, he said.
“All these questions pose enormous difficulty for non-originalists, who must agonize over what the modern Constitution ought to mean with regard to each of these subjects, and then agonize over the very same questions five or 10 years later, because times change,” he said.
During the last assisted suicide case, a majority of the court said it was “not prepared” to announce a constitutional right to what at the time was universally criminalized conduct.
“Stay tuned,” Scalia said.
Similarly, in the course of 16 years, the court changed its decision that juvenile capital punishment was permissible and declared it cruel and unusual punishment.
“I will stipulate that [originalism] is not perfect,” he said. But “in ease of lawyerly application, never mind legitimacy and predictability, it far surpasses the competition.”
Lawyers “are not trained to be moral philosophers,” which is what it takes to determine whether there should be a right to abortion or assisted suicide. “History is a rock-solid science compared to moral philosophy,” Scalia said.
In the past few decades the court has been the beneficiary of a growing body of scholarship in history and constitutional legal history. Judges today have no shortage of secondary literature to sort through, Scalia said, including thorough amicus briefs — “sometimes too thorough.”
Twenty years ago amicus briefs were unreliable in their spare analysis of textual and historical meaning, Scalia said.
By the time Heller came to the court in 2008, the mass of briefing was “nothing short of spectacular,” and filled over five volumes in the Supreme Court library. Historical details were the “heart and soul” of the briefing, Scalia said.
Although briefs now address the originalist approach, Scalia said many briefs are not helpful, including those from trade associations, which seem designed to “assure the association members that their staff is on the job.” Academic briefs written by a small number of faculty that are “circulated like petitions” and signed by a large number of faculty often have a “pretense to scholarly impartiality.”
“Disinterested scholarship and advocacy do not mix well,” he said. But the raw materials in such briefs “can vastly improve the quality and accuracy of originalist decisions.”
At least one critic has accused originalists of practicing “law office history” — selecting data favorable to the position being advanced without concern for contrary information.
“To equate chambers’ history with law office history is profoundly ignorant,” he said. In the case of Heller, “If a contest seems one-sided, and I think it does, it’s only because the historical evidence favoring response was overwhelming.”
Historians who have published serious studies on the subject agree that the right to bear arms has long been understood as an individual right, Scalia said. And though historians can provide background information on such matters, judges are the legal experts.
“Ultimately it is the judges’ call,” he said. “Figuring out the meaning of legal texts is judges’ work.”
Originalism is not a guarantee against judicial abuse, Scalia admitted.
“But originalism does not invite him to make the law what he thinks it should be, nor does it permit him to distort history with impunity,” he said. The honest originalist will sometimes or often reach results he does not personally favor. “All of this cannot be said of the constitutional consequentialists.
“If ideological judging is the malady, the avowed application of such personal preferences will surely hasten the patient’s demise, and the use of history is far closer to being the cure than being the disease.”
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/limited-government/
Limited Government
Government has only those powers delegated to it by the people. Several articles and amendments to the Constitution create a limited federal government: one restrained to specific, enumerated powers. This federal system serves as a check on government power. Article I lists the powers of Congress, Article II lists the powers of the executive branch, and Article III lists the powers of the judiciary branch. The structure and purpose of each branch was devised so as to assure checks and balances, which provide another way of limiting government power and potential abuses. The Tenth Amendment notes that the states or the people retain those powers not delegated to the federal government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's the 'progressive' view:
According to whom????? Well, according to The Chosen One ("the epitome of perfection")...so say his mindless flock of sheep.
:neenee:
Limited Government
Government has only those powers delegated to it by the people. Several articles and amendments to the Constitution create a limited federal government: one restrained to specific, enumerated powers. This federal system serves as a check on government power. Article I lists the powers of Congress, Article II lists the powers of the executive branch, and Article III lists the powers of the judiciary branch. The structure and purpose of each branch was devised so as to assure checks and balances, which provide another way of limiting government power and potential abuses. The Tenth Amendment notes that the states or the people retain those powers not delegated to the federal government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's the 'progressive' view:
According to whom????? Well, according to The Chosen One ("the epitome of perfection")...so say his mindless flock of sheep.
:neenee:
I'm not talking about judicial review, dipshit. Christ, you have no idea what that means either. You probably just Googled Supreme Court and found something you hoped would make you look smart after copying and pasting. Do you understand the difference between interpreting law as it is written and reinterpreting what's in the Constitution?
Otherwise, prove me wrong. Show me where in Article III the Supreme Court is granted the authority to interpret the Constitution itself on an ongoing basis. Go on, I'm waiting...
