Constitutional giant Antonin Scalia has passed away this week, and while many immediately turned toward the prospects of his replacements, less interest has been placed on the great influence that we have lost.
As the court’s most devout defender of the constitution, Antonin’s passing may very well mark the passing of the Constitution’s role as the central document through which each decision must be weighed.
With Scalia’s death, the court has been turned over its now-liberal majority, and their belief that the constitution contains what they think it ought to contain, rather than what it actually says.
Scalia often proved this point with the cutting style for which he was well known. When confronted by people who morally oppose the judge’s decisions, Scalia would respond in a way that made clear the distinctions of want and constitutional need, “I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,” he once said. He never did, however, make sexual orgies a legal requirement.
In his Obergefell v. Hodges dissent, he accused the liberal judges that made up the majority of not respecting that distinction, claiming their position lacked even the “thin veneer of law.”
The loss of Antonin Scalia further explains the tragic loss for constitutionalists across the country. Move on to the next page:
No……..we must be vigilant.
It will only go into the nite so too speak if WE LET IT…The founding fathers were prepared too die for us….?So what is it we shall do for them and our children…….
By David Bernstein February 13
Thanks to a Volokh Conspiracy commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.
UPDATE: Updated with a link to the final vote on the resolution, 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” Also, note that President Eisenhower had recess-appointed William Brennan to the Supreme Court in October 1956, just before the presidential election. With a winnable election coming up, Democrats obviously didn’t want a replay.
what little of it that is left
I am becoming suspicious over his death.
A war I’ll likely start. Libs will lose rather quickly. They I’ll find that defending there lies includes more than wagging there tongue. They don’t have the backbone to stand and fight.
Very concern
Oh b******t , stop the fear mongering
Terry Meng Brian Kelly Rebecca Jean Arledge look into it.. It’s a mess
Our whole country is run by the Constitution, not any one man but the whole of us.