Talk:Antonin Scalia

Responsive interpretation and Evolving constitution

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.-AmesG_yo! 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?-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 13:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I've begun notes for Responsive interpretation with a legal quote. --Ed Poor 13:03, 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.-AmesG_yo! 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, authoriatarian 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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 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?-AmesG_yo! 18:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)