was still a law professor at the University of Chicago, the American Enterprise Institute invited him to a panel called “An Imperial Judiciary: Fact or Myth?” On his side of the table was Laurence Silberman, who had been Richard Nixon’s Deputy Attorney General; across from them sat the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Harvard Law professor.
Scalia also advocated for judges to develop strict rules that would tie them down rather than flexible standards that called on courts to balance interests and weigh various factors. “If the next case should have such different facts that my political or policy preferences regarding the outcome are quite the opposite,” he wrote in a 1989 article called “The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,” “I will be unable to indulge those preferences; I have committed myself to the governing principle.
When Scalia started teaching at the University of Chicago, he was lonely. “You could fire a cannon loaded with grapeshot in the faculty lounge of any law school in the country and not strike an originalist,” he said. This changed. While Scalia evangelized his methods on and off the bench, a small group of conservative law students he’d helped advise as a professor, called the Federalist Society, was becoming the country’s most powerful legal organization.
Dobbs and Bremerton stressed the importance of straitjacketing judges. But these were far from restrained decisions—as evidenced by their divergence from centuries of proposals for taming courts. Scalia was not the first to realize the danger of giving judges the power to interfere with democratic legislation.
Scalia’s philosophy of restraint was born in dissent. While the Court’s majority reached expansive conclusions that pleased liberals, he got to cry that they were heady and imperious and needed to be brought down to earth. Even if you thought he was smug, intolerant, and wrong-headed, at least you could see where he was coming from. That nine unelected lawyers have the power to shape our nation’s social order should unsettle us all.
He was correct. If people don’t like the way laws are written, they should pass better laws…if they can. It’s not the court's job to legislate from the bench. It’s their job to decide on the constitutionality of the laws as written. 1/
Ah. The man who broke Scotus. CitizensUnited
LEAD Elon Musk Is Wrong. Sleeping on the Floor Isn't How You Fix a Company Twitter has plenty of problems, but this isn't solving any of them. BY JASON ATEN, TECH COLUMNIST JASONATEN
All Catholics, imposing Catholic doctrine on the country.
'Antonin Scalia is the Ronald Reagan of the Judicial Branch;' there are two sides to every argument, but both men tipped the scales to our modern horrors.
'Antonin Scalia is the Ronald Reagan of the Judicial Branch;' there are two sides to every argument, but both men tipped the scales to our modern horrors.
The philosophy of doing what your billionaire sponsors want you to do?
It’s not a philosophy. It’s an inconsistent approach to creating legalese and justify a position already taken.
As if discourse on judicial philosophy, even extreme ones, can blithely continue despite the political ratfuckery employed to hustle that majority onto the court.
If not for their recent bad rulings and resulting wave of pissed off women voters, there would have been a true red wave.
FakeNews
And if Scalia was alive today, believe you me, he’d find a wordy way to justify it. That man hadn’t an ounce of integrity.
As they say, upon finding yourself in a hole from which you cannot escape, first you must stop digging.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: WashTimes - 🏆 235. / 63 Read more »
Source: WOKVNews - 🏆 247. / 63 Read more »
Source: WBUR - 🏆 274. / 63 Read more »
Source: KPIXtv - 🏆 443. / 53 Read more »
Source: 10News - 🏆 732. / 50 Read more »
Source: cleantechnica - 🏆 565. / 51 Read more »