tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2076449425465415120..comments2024-03-17T14:55:33.289-06:00Comments on American Creation: Justice Scalia, RIPBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9771240986376044542016-02-15T11:15:29.697-07:002016-02-15T11:15:29.697-07:00The death of Scalia removes from the High Court on...The death of Scalia removes from the High Court one of the jurists who most admired the Founders. A sad day for the nation. Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36964591225848028962016-02-14T21:24:57.118-07:002016-02-14T21:24:57.118-07:00Thus, when Scalia writes a majority or a dissent t...<i>Thus, when Scalia writes a majority or a dissent that has any other of the Justices joining him, he can't say "let's dump Stare Decisis."</i><br /><br /><br /><i>Stare decisis</i>, “to stand by things decided,” is a rule of prudence only, of stability. To change the understanding of the laws every year [or every morning] is a radicalism of the French Revolution sort. It does not end well--indeed it ends with Napoleon, who though a tyrant, was a tyrant of some great consistency. <br /><br />Any reasonable man prefers to wake up under a tyrant of consistency before a capricious democracy any morning.<br /><br /><br />That <i>Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson,</i> once ruled, are immutable law for all legal eternity is Scalia never said nor would. <i>Stare decisis</i> and the "rule of law' are not the same thing atall atall, especially under our Constitution.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33736407332103496492016-02-14T21:22:28.031-07:002016-02-14T21:22:28.031-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87018868592537358652016-02-14T21:07:39.032-07:002016-02-14T21:07:39.032-07:00Better put, in his own words--and it has always be...Better put, in his own words--and it has always been an American Creation blog tradition to cite source documents, a man in his own words instead of some blogger or historian's filters and paraphrases:<br /><br /><i>"...in those days, any common-law decision of one state would readily cite common-law decisions of other states, because all the judges were engaged in the enterprise of figuring out the meaning of what Holmes called "the brooding omnipresence in the sky" of the common law.<br /><br />Well, I think we've replaced that with the law of human rights. Which is a moral law, and surely there must be a right and a wrong answer to these moral questions -- whether there's a right to an abortion, whether there's a right to homosexual conduct, what constitututes cruel and unusual punishment, and so on -- surely there is a right and wrong moral answer. And I believe there is, but the only thing is, I'm not sure what that right answer is. Or at least, I am for myself, but I'm not sure it's the same as what you think.<br /><br />And the notion that all the judges in the world can contemplate this brooding omnipresence of moral law, cite one another's opinions, and that somehow, they are qualified by their appointment to decide these very difficult moral questions . . .<br /><br />It's quite surprising to me, but I am sure that this is where we are.</i><br /><br />And indeed we were in 2006, and in 2016, even more so.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1623829572164266102016-02-14T15:39:30.259-07:002016-02-14T15:39:30.259-07:00Until America had its own system of laws, English ...Until America had its own system of laws, English common law <i>was</i> our law. I think you'll find that Scalia believed that we now that have a comprehensive body of duly legislated laws by duly constituted legislatures, anything else--esp a "living constitutionalism" imposed by judges--is anti-democratic, anti-constitutional and anti-American.<br /><br />The whole speech--tying living constitutionalism with invoking foreign laws--may be found here.<br /><br />http://web.archive.org/web/20080116061700/http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/aei2-21-06.asp<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com