.jpg)
Do you agree with Justice Scalia's belief that the philosophy of textualism best supports the view that judges should interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench?
Base your opinion on Scalia's comments on the following issues:
a) Bush v. Gore
b) The Citizens United Case
c) Roberts Court decision on Obamacare
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/07/29/justice-antonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country#p//v/1760654457001
After watching the interview of Justice Scalia, I agree with his philosophy. I believe that the bench's decision isn't as strong than what is written in the constitution. He says that "Textualism means you are governed by the text", this means that you are controlled by the text of any writing that associated with a court case or anything in particular that really holds the decision of a problem. A lot of the times he mentions the amendments and he gives different kinds of examples like the death penalty. After listening to him speak, you ca understand how many of the people don't understand how the constitution or the amendments work and they get confused about it. I didn't really hear anything about the Bush vs Gore case and how the recount led going to court. In my opinion, I believe this court case associates with Roe vs Wade and the 4th amendment because of due process. Due process means that a state must respect a person's legal rights. Florida isn't the best state for court cases or recounts because of many reason's. I know I'm going off topic but the Jordan Zimmerman trial and the recount of the President election in 2000. John Scalia even though he won't admit it, he isn't a big fan of ObamaCare. Wallace and Scalia discuss Obamacare and Chief Justice Roberts and Wallace asks Scalia if he Roberts changed his mind about the case but Scalia probably knows but didn't want to say. Overall, the constitution plays a key part in court cases and this will help future court cases but the bench is not the best solution.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Justice Scalia's view of textualism being the best way to make a decision due to the fact that for certain instances, the written Constitution can in no way be compared to our modern capabilities. Scalia's view on the 4th Amendment, for example, says that the women's right to choose whether or not to carry on with her pregnancy is nowhere protected in that amendment, it only involves unjust search and seizure in the home, on a person, etc. This cannot be viewed strictly with the text due to the impossibility of a medical procedure like an abortion during the time period in which the Constitution was written, therefore some leeway needs to be given in order to recognize the "evolving times" that the other Justice mentioned. Voting in favor of Pro-Choice movements is not necessarily legislating from the bench, it is simply recognizing that times have changed since the Constitution was written, therefore more liberties need to be allocated with certain laws. In regards to the above mentioned instances, I find it very interesting how Scalia tried to avoid mentioning his decision at all costs and simply stating that he has changed his mind on cases before, but what those opinions were are not stated. The privacy of the court is trying to be maintained in the presence of the constant media attention and I respect that tradition, but basing decisions on a text that was not made to dictate certain modern instances is not the best way to judge a case or a piece of legislation. In all, I do believe that following the Constitution is how cases should be decided, but legislating from the bench is much different in allowing leeway to allow for modern times and this leeway is needed to keep the country up to date, as opposed to following rules that may have become slightly outdated since they were written.
ReplyDeleteI concur with Scalia's opinion on textualism, or basing judicial decisions more on the text of the Constitution rather than the environment. It is the judges duty to interpret the Constitution and debate whether or not a law is constitutional, whereas Congress is really responsible for reacting to new problems. Because of the biases that the judges have and the media, sometimes the judges decisions are wrongly influenced by modern-day issues. However, that was not the intent of the Framers. Scalia's disapproval of ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, is not because of his political views: it is because he finds no support in the Constitution that gives the policy any means. He criticizes his fellow judge for approving Obamacare under the belief that it is a tax. However, Scalia recognizes that Obamacare, while it is funded by the people through taxation, it is not an actually tax. While it is socially pleasing, it is unconstitutional. I believe Scalia is correct in basing his opinions off of the text. One must keep in mind that traditions, values, and times are continually changing- but, the Constitution is forever. Therefore, they should remain loyal to something that is applicable in the long run, rather than pleasing short-term beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMegan Byrne
Michael N.
ReplyDeleteScalia is a purposivist. (No idea how to spell that.) He tried to say that textualism differs from purposivism in that when considering the statute about attorney's fees, a purposivist would consider the purpose of the statute, and say the prosecution also does not pay expert witnesses, while a textualist would take it right out of the text and consider the meaning of attorney's fees. But then there's originalism, Scalia's renamed version of purposivism that he calls a part of textualism so he can pretend to be on a different side. Originalism uses the situation at the time to take into account what the founders meant by the text they wrote. That's purposivism! And originalism! They are the same thing. He even says with gun control and the electric chair that you have to translate the restrictions they had on the right to bear arms and punishment to new modern technology. So I agree with what Scalia's saying, and disagree with what he thinks he's saying. You cannot strictly look at the exact words of the constitution because, as we've all heard a million times, there are things they could not have accounted for. This seems to be an argument between strictly holding directly to the constitution, or making decisions to fit the times, when really you can do both. Applying the intended meaning of the constitution to a more recent situation, you know THE WHOLE REASON THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS. So I guess I would say textualism is not the best policy, because originalism a.k.a. purposivism is not part of it.
Michael N.
I agree with Scalia’s view of textualism. According to Scalia, “Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.” When it comes to the government, it is easy to let politics get in the way when it comes to making major decisions. Textualism prevents this possibility from happening because Supreme Court justices are required to strictly adhere to the text of the Constitution. The Citizens United case perfectly represents the power of textualism. It seems as though Obama was trying to pressure the Supreme Court justices to change their decision based on his political motives. Even Wallace was trying to wonder if Scalia felt pressured to act. His response was perfect: "What can [Obama] do to me? Or to any of us? We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.” By having such a stable method, the Supreme Court justices are upholding their duties to simply give an unbiased opinion on pressing issues.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video and listening to Justice Scalia, I agree with his interpretation of textualism relating to the legislating from the bench issue. As he described it, textualism is when a justice interprets the situation in front of him and makes his or hers decision strictly based off the written law, not the outcome it may have. He brought up the point that a good judge rules on the issue based on the law itself, and the main reason they are appointed for life is so they can avoid the politics of it all. I think the philosophy of textualism supports interpreting the constitution and not legislating from the bench. The constitution has been around for hundreds of years and these laws are known and practiced by all, to change them on a situation basis does not make much sense. I agree with Paraskevas that many people do not fully understand how the constitution works and they get easily confused; making rulings on a situation basis will only confuse them further. Chris Wallace brings up a clip of a speech given by President Obama where he criticizes the court and their decision involving the Citizens United case. This is a prime example of Scalia’s theory behind textualism because Obama wanted the court to rule based on how it would affect the people, not how the law was written. As much as Wallace tried to make Scalia comment on the fact that Obama was criticizing the court, he obviously didn’t because his textualism beliefs make him not care about others opinions; his main focus is enforcing the law based on how it is written in the constitution.
ReplyDeleteMegan Musachio
After watching the video, I agree with the idea of textualism, but, I dont know if its that easy. Justice Scalia stated in the interview "the court is not political". He also later says that because he has a lifetime appointment, that guarantees an apolitical system. However, just because no one can fire you does not mean you can just shut off your opinions. Politics are formed from personal experiences and situations you've been in. Becoming a Supreme Court judge does not give you the power to turn off those feelings and opinions. In the Citizens United Case, Obama wanted the court to make their decision based on how it would affect the people and not the original law. But, how can we ignore the effects a decision could have on citizens just to preserve the intentions of the founding fathers? What makes what was written in the 1700s the end all be all? I think it is slightly naive to just ignore current situations and circumstances and make a decision based on law that was written hundreds of years ago when the world is changing everyday.
ReplyDeleteAs with many of my classmates above, I agree with Justice Scalia's view of textualism and law being governed by the text. While I agree with textualism and that the Supreme Court should make decisions based of the Constitution, I disagree with what he called originalism. I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution when it was written should be used to make decisions on modern day issues. When the Constitution was being written the effects of things such as the internet and nuclear weapons, were not taken into consideration. The law should be governed by the text, but it is unlikely that this actually happens during every case. Even though Justice Scalia says politics do not influence the court and that they have life tenure for that reason, I agree with Casey that it is not that easy. The justices can say that politics do not influence their decisions, but people's opinions can change very easily, even if you are in the Supreme Court. I believe that textualism is the way things should work, but even the Supreme Court justices are going to be influenced by politics. It may not be as easy as President Obama thought it was going to be in The CItizens United case by pressuring them, but politics are everywhere and I think that they have a way of changing the justices opinion in some way or another during their time in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Justice Scalia's idea of textualism. One of Scalia's main arguments for the idea of textualism is that he does not want politics to affect the decisions made by judges. This seems to contradict his answer to the question, will you time your retirement so a conservative president can appoint a like minded justice? His response was “Well of course i would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything i have tried to do for the past 25 years”. This answer to me seems to show that he wants the person that replaces him to follow the same thought process as him. One other reason why I would disagree with Scalia’s idea of textualism is his idea on Roe vs. Wade and the 4th Amendment. Scalia said “there is no right to privacy in the constitution … the 4th Amendment says the people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”. This idea should show why textualism is not a viable idea in today’s day and age. He follows this with his idea that wire tapping is not a privacy granted in the constitution. This idea should show why textualism is not a viable idea in today’s day and age. This is an example of privacy being taken away from the people of the United States by people who only follow the text of the constitution. I believe the founding fathers did not ever think that the government would get so big to the point that they are monitoring what people say on their phone. A person could be in the privacy of their own home, and the government could be listening in on what they are saying on the phone without it being unconstitutional is what I took from his statement on wire taping. This in my opinion should be reason enough why you cannot make decisions based solely on the text first written more than 200 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Justice Scalia’s belief that textualism is the best judicial philosophy for the Supreme Court. The court is only truly legislating from the bench when they overlook the actual text and base their decision on whether or not the outcome is favorable. “Purposivism” or deciding the case on the basis of what will further the purpose/deciding the case on the outcome not the text, is legislating from the bench. Through textualism the court is applying the Constitution to the modern day situation and not filtering the constitution to form with political beliefs. I respect Justice Scalia’s reasoning for voting down Obamacare; in his belief Obamacare is not a tax. He was not citing his political affiliations but rather believed that he “cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear” and therefore cannot believe that Obamacare is under taxation.
ReplyDeletei do not know much about individual Supreme Court Justices, but Justice Scalia is the most open and honest Judge i have seen or heard to this day. With his book and all the criticisms that came with it along with comments about him i do agree with Justice Breyer that the world is ever changing and it is hard to abide and apply the Constitution amendments as they were written in 18th century when we have much more technology and variables in different states. Him not commenting on the internal affairs about Obamacare was expected and he did seem like he was not a fan of it as not a fan of President Obama as he later stated he did not want to retire and have someone else replace him trying to undo what he had done. He takes his criticisms to his chin which is what he is suppose do, but i do think Obamacare was not one of the cases in which he changed his mind last minute like he said he was done before when writing the majority letter of the case. Therefore, i would disagree with his views of textualism and purposeism because i do not think you can interpret the amendments now in todays society as they they were carried out 250 years ago because the world is changing in a direction whether it is good or bad everyday. He seems very knowledgeable, yet very hard headed in where he stands on many issues discussed especially when he criticized other Justices he said he liked very much, and will tell you if he thinks your wrong. On the topic of Obamacare and where i think he stood i would agree with because it was a bill that was debated for a year and i do not see causing much prosperity and solving any of the many issues the United States of America has today.
ReplyDeleteTextualism means, as the name implies, that the Supreme Court Justices are governed by the text. Under textualistic principles, judges should interpret the constitution to find out what the text meant in the time period it was written in. Scalia continues to define textualists as people that consult “only the purpose that is apparent in the very text” while purposivists consider the purpose and decide the case “on the basis of what will further the purpose.” Based on Scalia’s definition, a very fine line is apparent.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Justice Scalia’s belief that judges should not legislate from the bench. Scalia’s arguments were excellent. He stated that the court was created to tell the legislature, and more broadly the people of the United States, what is legal and what is not. It seems undemocratic, but since the American people gave the Supreme Court the power to ensure that legislation is constitutional, it (the Supreme Court) is democratic. Scalia’s arguments, about the democratic nature of the Court, were in direct response to the Roberts Court decision. He believes that the
Court should not have decided that Obamacare was legal. He does not believe it is a tax. Even though the democratically elected Congress voted for the bill, the Supreme Court still should have declared it unconstitutional because they were given the right to consider an act’s constitutionality by the people.
An example of the court acting with the textualistic doctrine in mind is the Citizens United Case. The Supreme Court declared that corporations, associations, and labor unions were guaranteed First Amendment rights. The decision was, and still is, unpopular. Obama, in his 2010 State of the Union Address, insulted the Supreme Court by calling their decision unjust. However, Scalia would argue that the decision is fair because the Court was given, by the American people, the power to decide an act’s constitutionality.
As for Bush v. Gore, the decision is a little cloudy: is it textualistic or purposivistic? The Court ruled that the recount would take too long and subsequently go past the December 12 “safe harbor” deadline. However, since it was never definitive that the recount would go past December 12th, the decision is questionable. Oddly enough, Scalia sided with the majority in striking down the recount. Why? Wouldn’t the decision fall in line with the purposivistic doctrine? It is difficult to know why Scalia acted the way he did, but his actions prove the immense difficulties in deciding on a Supreme Court Case. Decisions will not always line up with a person’s beliefs.
Although Scalia says that the court isn't political, and the court wasn't designed to be politcal, like Casey said, opinions don't go away when you get appointed to the supreme court. Although justices aren't making decisions with an election in mind, they can still have their own agenda. Based on Scalia's answer about waiting for a conserative president before he retires, he is aware of this. However, this could also be related to what was mentioned earlier about democrats and republicans having different qualities they look for in a judge.
ReplyDeleteTextualism does have the potential to work, seeing as not being elected removes politcal pressure. (However, I'm not sure whether Scalia said yes or no before he said "what can he do to me?" because even though it sounded like he said no, the transcript said yes. Then again, the transcript said "Mayberry versus Madison". And then there's "the sheer applesauce of the statutory interpretation" but the applesauce part was also said aloud and appeared on the screen, so that one's more confusing in the sense of "what does applesauce have to do with court" than in the sense of "please proofread your transcripts.") (Sorry for the rant; I just get bothered when transcripts and captions are incorrect.)
Regarding legislating from the bench, it is a possibility no matter what theory, be it textualism, purposivism, or another theory, because no matter how strict your interpretation of the constitution is, you still have your opinions in the back of your mind, and if you spend enough time thinking about it, you can find a way for the law to back up your stance. This can make it tricky for outsiders to tell if a judge was legislating from the bench or if the constitution happened to match the judge's opinion.
Like most of my classmates, I agree with Justice Scalia's view of textualism. The job of the Supreme Court is to make their decisions based on the text of constitution, not to impose their own beliefs on the decisions made. Justices are not voted into to office by the American people so they have no right to insert their own politics in their decisions. If they do not make their decisions based strictly on the constitution, they are then legislating from the bench. As Justice Scalia stated, the Supreme Court had no right to make a decision regarding the legality of abortion in Roe v. Wade because it was not directly mentioned in the Constitution. The founding fathers had never expected abortion to be an issue when constructing the Constitution, so the court has no right to make a decision on the issue. Abortion should be dealt with legislatively.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rebecca. Justice Scalia forms his decisions based on textualism and originalism. I was especially impressed with Justice Scalia's explanation of his decision in the ObamaCare cases. While Justice Scalia's decision did align with the view of most Republicans regarding the Affordable Care Act, the decision was not based on politics but rather on his belief that the new law could not be viewed as a tax. Justice Scalia's statement that he was not intimidated by President Obama's remarks at the 2010 State of the Union Address is a perfect example of the Supreme Court being excluded from politics. There is no possible way the president can affect a justice's decisions, leaving the justice free to interpret the Constitution in a non-political manner.
ReplyDeleteKatie Cresser
This is probably the toughest reply I've had to make yet. While i agree with much of what Justice Scalia is saying, i also think that textualism only allows us to interpret the law in a way that leaves many of todays contemporary issues unresolved. I think that Justice Scalia's rigid interpretation of the constitution is good to a certain extent and can only deem certain issues constitutional or unconstitutional. For example, when Justice Scalia was talking about gun control, he seemed a little confused on how to interpret the law because he was analyzing the law as if we were still living in the 1800's when the original text of the constitution was still relevant. So in many respects, i think textualism will cause more problems in the future, but on the other hand, i think if you don't analyze the constitution through the lens of textualism, personal opinion and politics will become too engrained in the courts. So for now, i guess I would rather see textualism more prominent in the courts because i believe that the Supreme Court should be apolitical in order to adequately check Congress and the Executive branch. I believe that in this ay in age, aggressive policy that go against what the constitution stands for such as Obama care should be met with regressive acts by the courts.
ReplyDeleteDan Minogue
I believe that Justice Scalia is basing his decisions by looking at the Constitution so literally. While it is his job to enforce the Constitution, I think the courts should take more consideration into how the original phrasing of the Constitution relates to today's world. Obviously, life wasn't the same in the 1700's as it is today, but some of the ideas are related to eachother or almost interchangeable. For example, the second amendment. Certain handheld weapons are banned under the original wording of the amendment. Why can't we take that and apply it to relatable things in today's world? But in the end, it all comes down to the political agenda. A republican judge would be more likely to view the second amendment the way the framers did, because it would be pro weapons, something republicans support. There is no way for us to solve the issue. DeLuca
ReplyDeleteScalia’s insistence on abiding by the constitution is admirable, but I also think there are some flaws in his standpoint of purposivism. Scalia is trying to use the founding fathers’ opinions on muskets, hand-rifles, and large axes carried around to intimidate others (I think that’s the historical reference he made) to judge the constitutionality of modern gun laws. The world has changed drastically since the 1780’s, and I really think that there are some issues in today’s world that the founding fathers’ written opinions cannot be interpreted to address. The judge eventually looked uncomfortable when Chris Wallace started listing examples of modern technology. However, I also agree with Dan—there has to be a happy medium between originalism (including Scalia’s purposivism, which sounds like a very potent version of originalism) and non-originalism. Originalism does ensure that the court stays true to the Constitution, and it’s imperative that abidance by the Consitution is the common denominator in all of our country’s legislation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Scalia that it was somewhat inappropriate for the president to openly praise the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. I also applaud Scalia’s passionate refusal—“sass” is in fact the description that comes to mind—to discuss internal court proceedings with Wallace, and his reasons why all news of internal court proceedings are false were very persuasive. Although it is very entertaining, I don’t like the frankness of Scalia’s comments towards his fellow judges’ opinions. I think it’s much better if the American people see the Court as a group of individuals who, despite their differing views, can respect one another’s opinions.
Justice Scalia's judgment based off of the text is a valuable opinion. His decisions are based solely from the text. He is neither influenced by those around him, media or the president. His security in his beliefs, supplied by his lifetime tenure, is why when President Obama doesn't agree with his conservative views he is resolved in his beliefs. He was appointed by a President who believed that his credentials the standards of a Justice. Scalia's views may not be as liberal as Obama supports but Scalia's influence is not based off of the people's support (As Obama's is). Instead his views are textual, and he is justified in his rulings because of his removal from politics.
ReplyDeleteScalia's assertion that textualism supports the view that judges should interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench is in line with the court cases that he has been a part of. His reaction to the president insulting the court's decision on Citizens United best expresses his view. He knows the president can't influence because he has life tenure, so therefore, he can interpret the law in any way he sees fit. Textualism is then the best way to interpret and not legislate because it is a very strict view when it comes down to interpret laws and acts. The same way he interprets and words his dissent towards Obamacare, stating that the wording in the constitution simply do not bear the same meaning as the affordable care act is trying to assert makes it unconstitutional. To me this appears unbiased, but we can never really know if he is bias. I agree based on the examples presented by Scalia that textualism is the best way to interpret laws in the modern era. We can never really know the true intent of the words when they were written so it is up to future readers to read the words, and apply them without worrying about what the original writer might have thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justice Scalia's belief that the philosophy of textualism best supports the view that judges should interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench. Although times have changed and the founding fathers didn't live in a world with all of the technology that we have today, like Stephen Breyer stated, that doesn't mean that justices cannot go by the constitution and do what they think is right for the time period. The court wasn't designed to be political and Scalia wants to keep it that way through texualism. I believe that what the American people want is fairness and the best decision to be made in favor for them and this will occur by sticking to the text in the constitution. Scalia said in the "long run" the American people want what is stated in the constitution and texualism is how to achieve this.
ReplyDeleteIn Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court based their decision off of originalism rather than texualism and made an unfair ruling. Scalia believes that abortion should be dealt with legislatively because there is nothing in the constitution about abortion or even the right to privacy. He believes that if any other decision was made, it was due to the current time period changes.
I disagree with Justice Scalia’s belief that textualism should be how judges interpret the constitution. I think that textualism provides a chance for politics and personal opinions to intervene with the meaning of the constitution. Over time technology changes, and so does our way of life. But this doesn’t mean we should ignore how our founders’ wanted our government to run, in exchange for convenient measures following a political agenda. Scalia believed that Obamacare would not be seen as a tax by the written meaning of the constitution, and in turn deemed that is was unconstitutional. I respect his opinion on this even if the Roberts Court decision did not match his belief. Scalia tried to follow the original intent of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Bush v Gore case was an example of legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court intervered with the democratic process by ending the recount. The recount may have ended in a timely matter but it was shut down before that could happen. Scalia was in favor of striking down the recount, and it could be an example of how his politics interfered. A striking moment in the interview, that Jeremy mentioned earlier, was when Scalia said he would prefer a conservative judge to be appointed when he retired. To quote the same line as Jeremy, “Well of course i would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything i have tried to do for the past 25 years.” Does this mean that Scalia has tried to legislate from the bench, using his own political ideals throughout his career? It contradicts the very image he was trying to create, that he solely focuses on interpreting the constitution, and stays away from the media and politics. Although I believe the ideal situation would be for judges to leave their political agenda behind when ruling on cases, it is not possible. It is inevitable that politics will play a role because a person’s decisions will always be influenced by his or her values.
I agree with Scalia's belief that textualism should be how judges interpret the constitution. However, judges should not completely throw out ideas of the Founding Father's as that would cause infringements with constitutionality. When the constitution was written, the Framers could not predict the vast amounts of technology and other changes that would come along to question constitutionality. I do not believe that Scalia's belief goes against the constitution as seen with his belief of ObamaCare as unconstitutional. Scalia made his decision on its constitutionality based off the way in which the health care act is funded and less on politics. However, as Tara brings up the point about the conservative judge taking Scalia's place, Scalia's belief of textualism becomes somewhat questionable especially since he voted down the recount when Bush was taking the presidency in 2000. Ultimately, I agree with textualism in that it is said to go with the meaning of the criteria of the time. I believe that if politics do not intervene, then textualism is a fair argument against originalism. However, there is no guarantee that politics will not triumph, as they usually do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justice Scalia’s belief that textualism should be how judges interpret the constitution. As Scalia stated, "Textualism means you are governed by the text." When making a decision, Scalia tries to interpret the meaning of the text by figuring out what those words meant during the time it was written. In regards to the Citizens United case, Obama wanted the court to make their decision based on how the ruling would affect people. Scalia refrained from criticizing the President, but he did say that due to lifetime tenure, he can't be threatened or influenced by politics. I agree with Rebecca when she said, "I respect Justice Scalia’s reasoning for voting down Obamacare; in his belief Obamacare is not a tax." Although affordable healthcare for all Americans sounds like a perfect idea, a judge cannot base his or her decision solely on the purpose. Justice Scalia used the Constitution to make his decision and therefore used textualism. Although times are changing, I believe we need to stick to the constitution to create order and stability.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard not to respect Justice Scalia’s insistence not being influenced by the public opinion, especially because the court wasn't designed to be political and Scalia wants to keep it that way through textualism, but it’s difficult for us to know how if actual strictly follows that. This is because we don't know what goes on when the discussion of the cases is taking place. He wants a conservative to replace him, thinks obamacare is unconstitutional, and votes in line with republican views so it’s difficult to know if he really is following textualism or just applying his personal opinions. Judges are in the court for life and can vote however they chose without having to please the country or the president. If they do not make their decisions based strictly on the constitution, they are then legislating from the bench. However, having someone who consistently votes in favor of a certain party’s views makes it difficult to know if this is actual what he’s doing. This is essentially why this is such a difficult question to answer. In addition, although logically textualism makes perfect sense, the country is evolving and even if you could take the laws for rifles and muskets and apply it to current gun situations, textualism makes social changes more difficult. Perhaps this is why republicans are so in favor of textualism, but then there is a paradox of a party supporting to make decisions on the constitution and not on party opinion because that actually favors their political agenda.
ReplyDeleteI some what agree with Scalia in that the judges should interpret the constitution based on textualism. With today's advancement in technology and media, it is difficult not to be influenced by these sources, but Scalia sticks to his beliefs and remains textual in his opinions. Scalia voted down ObamaCare because he used the constitution to make his decision. I agree with Scalia's reasoning on voting down ObamaCare based on constitutional interpretation, but I believe it will be difficult to keep decision making narrow while more controversial issues are evolving within our country. Some of the issues we have today, the Founding Father's never could have imagined, which is why the use of textualism to decided on certain issues, such as gun control, may be difficult.
ReplyDeleteAs a person who believes that the Supreme Court had no constitutional justification for legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, I feel that Justice Scalia’s textualist approach is admirable. Since the Supreme Court is tasked with determining the constitutionality of a given statute, it is only logical that the majority of the institution's attention should be focused upon the actual text of the document that forms the foundation of our government. As was seen by the disparaging remarks made towards the court by President Obama, adhering to strict textualism is not always popular. In Citizens United, for example, the court held that preventing corporations from donating to political campaigns was an infringement upon their 1st Amendment right to free speech. During that year’s State of the Union Address, the justices came under heavy fire from the President for “opening the floodgates for special interest.” I found it amusing, however, that Scalia seemed not to care about Obama’s attempt to bully the court into upholding Obamacare. Rather, he seemed more interested in doing his job than making political statements. Unfortunately, other justices, both past and present, seem to have an unhealthy interest in judicial activism. Personally, I feel that a group of 9 unelected individuals should show some degree of restraint and avoid “legislating from the bench.” Since we are a democratic nation, I believe that decisions regarding contentious issues, such as the legality of abortion, should be deferred to Congress as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Scalia's approach to his job is perfectly fine, although the one flaw lies in the fact that interpreting the constitution, in certain situations, may become over-interpreting it. The constitution was meant to be the basis on which we decide how our legal system should work and how our society should function, but when we overanalyze things, and attribute them to situations that may not be too related, we start to lose some of the value it is meant to give us. This occurs in the Citizens United Supreme court case, in which it was ruled that putting restrictions on campaign funds was a violation of 1st amendment free speech rights, and that doing so would impede a corporation's (which also has these rights as well) or a group's ability to present their ideas through the person who is receiving the funds for his/her campaign. It is one thing to advertise about a person, with the consent of that person, with one's own funds, including one's own ideas; that should very much be protected under the first amendment, but to extend the analysis of the first amendment so much that simply putting restrictions on campaign funding is an impediment to free speech is ridiculous. I also wouldn't consider this legislating from the bench. The supreme court can decide whether or not it is constitutional to have regulations, and then Congress can decide what said regulations must be.
ReplyDelete