Andy, I'm right. The "Living Constitution" idea is the "responsive" modality of interpretation, typified by Brown. How is that wrong? Unless you disagree with Brown.-AmesGyo! 01:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG repeatedly inserted a reference to Brown v. Board of Ed. in an attempt to justify the liberal "evolving Constitution."
Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned the Supreme Court's own ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. The citation is simply inappropriate here.
This page has to be locked to prevent recurrence of this edit, and vandalism, because this page is now linked on the main page for the 28th.--Aschlafly 01:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Scalia's opinion of Brown v Education might be relevant, if it were known. As is, mentioning Brown just confuses. RSchlafly 01:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ummm... it's a citation to an established legal principle known as responsivism. Andy, your arrogance (or ignorance?) in ignoring actual legal fact is shocking. Has your worldview really sent your mind spinning that far?-AmesGyo! 02:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- It is not a question of what Andy knows, or that legal scholars know. You are putting words in Scalia's mouth by suggesting that Scalia has lambasted the underpinning of Brown v. Board. If he has, then quote him. If he hasn't, then don't try to string concepts together for the purpose of some false innuendo. RSchlafly 02:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Responsive interpretation is the underpinning of Brown v. Board of Education. See Brest, Levinson et al, Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking, 5th ed, 898. Scalia hates responsive interpretations. See your article. Ergo, Scalia hates the underpinning of the Brown decision.-AmesGyo! 09:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Write an article on responsive interpretation if you want, but don't attribute views to Scalia unless you can prove it. Scalia is not bashful about expressing his opinions, so you should be able to quote him if you are correct. RSchlafly 12:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply to my point or give up. I did prove it.-AmesGyo! 13:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- AmesG, your argument is illogical. It is like saying, "Bush says he is compassionate, compassion underlies tax increases, ergo Bush favors tax increases". It is dishonest for you to attribute views to Scalia that he never said. Maybe you think that they ought to be his views, but you cannot read minds. RSchlafly 13:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, I don't have to offer a cite for Scalia not liking Brown; that's not what I'm positing. I am proving, well I might add, that Scalia does disagree with the underpinning of the Brown decision as written by Earl Warren. The logic is plain and clear; you can attack each element of the argument, but it's plan 1->2 2->3 ergo 1->3. Transitive property. Bam.-AmesGyo! 15:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Sometimes people who call themselves "conservatives" are in disagreement with others who call themselves "conservatives". Is there such a thing as a true conservative or are there libertarian conservatives, religious conservatives, authoritarian conservatives, etc?
- There is a difference. This is young-earth-creationist-scientific-fact-denying-dinosaurs-and-humans-coexisted-apedia. A real Conservapedia would be very different.-AmesGyo! 16:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Busing & beyond!
I agree, busing is kinda lame. I thought Greene was justified for a short time, but I agree with the cases ending busing (see e.g. Keyes). That said, RSchlalfy, seriously? Lame.-AmesGyo! 17:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- It is irrelevant. Scalia has been on the Supreme Court for about 20 years. Write about what he has actually said and done, instead of trying to extrapolate his logic to other issues. RSchlafly 17:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- It's not extrapolation to state that what he is opposed to is prevalent in modern jurisprudence. I realize, however, that it's probably not something you want to hear, since I'm betting you like him a lot. Actually, he's a great justice on Admin Law... textualism works there.... but when extended into conlaw it does flow against Brown.-AmesGyo! 17:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- It has nothing to do with whether I like him or I hate him. Either way, criticism of his views should be based on what he actually said. It does the reader no good to learn some straw man attacks. RSchlafly 17:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
It does the reader no good, either, to learn intelligent design, but that's not stopped you yet! Aside from that, what's a "straw man" argument? Some sort of evolutionary scientist devil-work?-AmesGyo! 18:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I am praying for you, RSchlafly, that your anger doesn't cause you to lash out so much anymore, and that your distrust still allows you to enjoy rational argument someday.-AmesGyo! 13:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- Lash out? I am merely removing your repeated malicious and misleading edits that suggest that Scalia favored racial segregation in the 1950s. The article is about Scalia. He has been writing Supreme Court opinions for 20 years. It is fine to put in some informed commentary about his actual opinions. It is not okay to put in wild speculation about issues that Scalia never addressed. RSchlafly 13:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Decisions touching on segregation
- In 1992, Scalia wrote that the courts should stop overseeing the desegregation of schools previously subject to de jure segregation, even for schools that remain significantly segregated. (Freeman v. Pitts)68 His concurrence in that ruling argues that school segregation cannot be remedied because it is impossible to identify its actual causes. Although he quotes a previous case acknowledging that discrimination may be partly caused by "discriminatory school assignments,"69 he still insists that it is unreasonable for the courts to keep overseeing these schools until such segregation is ended. Later in 1992, Scalia was the sole dissenter from an 8-1 ruling that Mississippi had failed to remedy the effects of discrimination in higher education. (United States v. Fordice)70 
- If, just after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, a State had enacted a law imposing racially discriminatory literacy tests (different questions for different races) a citizen prejudiced by such a test would have had no means of asserting his constitutional right to be free of it. Section 5 authorizes Congress to create a cause of action through which the citizen may vindicate his Fourteenth Amendment rights. One of the first pieces of legislation passed under Congress’s §5 power was the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871 
The article mentions Scalia's dissent in "jurisprudence such as Roe v. Wade," but Scalia wasn't on the Court until 13 years after Roe was decided. Did whoever put this in included this mean Planned Parenthood v. Casey?