I remember the day that I realized adults could be wrong: it was while reading a book on pubescence (I had questions, and was a nerd). What the book said directly contradicted what I had experienced (book said no such thing as 'blue balls' and after having experienced them, I had to disagree). It's been a long process since then of learning to discern what is opinion vs what is fact. It's not surprising that Justices should judge based upon their own personal experiences. Things are sometimes less 1/0 than we would like them to be. This does become a problem when we are talking about such things as rights - if they are open to interpretation, then they can be interpreted away, and are no longer rights, but privileges.
Anybody who thinks he can take a centuries old document and claim that he knows its one and only meaning is just dishonest. That applies for the US constitution and most religious books.
"Still, I think the "coincidence" of rulings that happen to agree with personal beliefs is hard to ignore."
Scalia ruled against his personal beliefs on numerous occasions, most famously in his two opinions upholding the constitutionality of flag burning. “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, but I am not king.”
He also wrote the majority opinion in the case holding that video games were entitled to First Amendment protection, a dissenting opinion arguing against warrantless collection of DNA swabs, and many other prominent civil liberties cases.
He was quite consistent in that he believed the federal government had precisely those powers specified explicitly in the Constitution, and no others. His personal opinion generally didn't enter into it.
5 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 18.6 ms ] threadIt's a scary world out there...
Scalia ruled against his personal beliefs on numerous occasions, most famously in his two opinions upholding the constitutionality of flag burning. “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, but I am not king.”
He also wrote the majority opinion in the case holding that video games were entitled to First Amendment protection, a dissenting opinion arguing against warrantless collection of DNA swabs, and many other prominent civil liberties cases.
He was quite consistent in that he believed the federal government had precisely those powers specified explicitly in the Constitution, and no others. His personal opinion generally didn't enter into it.