The Scalia Seat: Let the People Speak

[Draggingtree]

Wall Street Journal : The Scalia Seat: Let the People Speak The legal stakes are higher than ever, and historic precedent favors waiting for a new president.

By

TED CRUZ

March 6, 2016 6:35 p.m. ET

619 COMMENTS

 

Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided over the proper role of the Supreme Court. President Obama and Democrats favor justices who see the Constitution as a potter sees clay—something that can be molded to achieve their desired results. This has led the Supreme Court to invent rights that are nowhere in the Constitution—like the right to an abortion or to same-sex marriage—and ignore or restrict rights that even nonlawyers can’t miss—like the First and Second Amendments.

 

Republicans view things very differently. We believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning and a judge’s task is limited—to discover what that meaning is, not to make it up.

[Draggingtree]

3/7/2016

Ted Cruz Op-Ed: Not Until The People Have Spoken

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:01 pm

[guest post by Dana]

 

Ted Cruz, in a marvelously straightforward Wall Street Journal op-ed, neatly lays out his reasons for supporting the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to not take up a nominee to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court until after the election.

 

He launched his persuasive argument by illustrating how the Democrats’ and Republicans’ basic view of the Constitution is in direct opposition to one another:

 

Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided over the proper role of the Supreme Court. President Obama and Democrats favor justices who see the Constitution as a potter sees clay—something that can be molded to achieve their desired results. This has led the Supreme Court to invent rights that are nowhere in the Constitution—like the right to an abortion or to same-sex marriage—and ignore or restrict rights that even nonlawyers can’t miss—like the First and Second Amendments.

 

Republicans view things very differently. We believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning and a judge’s task is limited—to discover what that meaning is, not to make it up.

http://patterico.com/2016/03/07/ted-cruz-op-ed-not-until-the-people-have-spoken/

[Geee]

Scalia's legacy of objectivity

 

Justice Antonin Scalia's more important legacy may be objectivity more so than conservatism. Scalia advanced broad acceptance of an objective method of interpretation without inherently favoring liberal or conservative policies. Originalism relies on the meaning of words written by others long ago instead of modern political fashions. Its objectivity ensures that law is more distinct from policy or politics.

 

Perhaps the best example of Scalia's influence on jurisprudence is the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller — Scalia authored the majority opinion. The Heller dissent is an in-depth historical analysis of the Second Amendment's text and history spanning 46 pages. It breaks down the amendment's text word-by-word, clause-by-clause, and interprets it in light of period documents, including the Declaration of Rights of six states and militia statutes of several others. It engages with the English Bill of Rights, the Federalist, and Blackstone's Commentaries. It criticizes the majority's misreading of the Second Amendment's preamble, concluding that the Court is merely reflecting its own policy preferences rather than interpreting the Constitution. It was written by Justice Stevens, the "liberal lion."

 

Stevens was dissenting from Scalia's majority opinion. The majority held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. Scalia too arrived at his position through detailed historical and textual analysis, but that is not particularly remarkable. He had been practicing that approach for decades.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/scalias-legacy-of-objectivity/article/2585310