Hmm. It may not be an intellectual principle, but Scalia isn’t making an intellectual argument. He’s a judge, an officer of our legal system. I would think that in that particular context the legal principle would hold more weight than it would in an intellectual debate.

There is no doubt that Stare Decisis is valuable to our society. One should exercise extreme caution before opening old wounds, but one should be willing to do it when enough is at stake. Sometimes you have to re-break a bone to get it to heal properly.

The modern interpretations of the welfare clause, the elastic clause, and the commerce clause are grotesque distortions of their original intents. Any true originalist should be working to restore them.

Hmm. It may not be an intellectual principle, but Scalia isn’t making an intellectual argument. He’s a judge, an officer of our legal system. I would think that in that particular context the legal principle would hold more weight than it would in an intellectual debate.

Sigh. Regardless, Scalia uses the English language like a lawyer, and Stahl uses it like a journalist. To Scalia, words are chosen based on their definition and what they mean. To Stahl, words are chosen based on how they make the audience feel.

…moderation in principle is always a vice

“But Mr. Scalia shows no concern for that.”

Jeff, you keep making this argument but you have not backed it up with anything.

It’s hard to cite, because it’s mostly evident in the battles he doesn’t take on. In his own words:

We have been proceeding on this non-originalist track for quite some time now. It includes a lot of stuff…But I’m not going to go back and; it’s water over the dam. I do feel bound by Stare Decisis

Stare Decisis may be a long-held legal tradition, but it darn sure isn’t an intellectual principle. You don’t hold onto geocentrism simply because previous astronomers had always gotten it wrong.

So yeah, he’s better than Ginsburg, but he’s far from a principled originalist.

This country cannot right itself until Conservatives realize that “holding the line” won’t suffice. There will always be
Breathingists and from time to time, they will hold power and move the line. If we don’t have the cajones to move it back, it’s only a matter of time before we descend into some form of authoritarianism.

To answer your questions, plus a bit more:

1) Stahl is an inept interviewer.
2) The MSM is not interested in allowing Justice Scalia to explain himself.
3) The morons who protest against Scalia don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand the concepts that guide him.

60 Minutes made some lame attempts at fairness, such as noting that Scalia is very close friends with Justice Ginsburg. However, it was really nothing more than a hatchet job by an incompetent journalist (am I repeating myself?) with a smily face painted on it.

I would bet my next paycheck that if we saw everything that was recorded during the interview, it would show Justice Scalia running intellectual circles around Stahl, who would be spending most of her time with that ever-so-concerned look on her face that we saw so much on the show.

Stahl should stick to interviewing second-rate celebrities and stay away from the cerebral stuff.

We agree on that.

“But Mr. Scalia shows no concern for that.”

Jeff, you keep making this argument but you have not backed it up with anything. Did you watch the tape? Scalia states that he is personally against abortion and flag burning. Yet he sees the former as a matter for the states and the latter as protected by the First Amendment.

Where’s all this hypocrisy that you keep talking about?

Are you trying to dance around Bush vs. Gore without mentioning it? The Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 against Gore (something the MSM rarely admits), with 2 justices merely disagreeing with the 5 other on the remedy. And, as Scalia noted, the outcome would have been the same without the Supreme Court taking the case, because Gore lost every cherry-picked recount he concocted.

I’m trying to understand why you keep accusing Scalia of hypocrisy when his record shows nothing of the sort.

But what an awful interview. I don’t know if Scalia is just tired of explaining himself over and over, or Stahl is just an inept interviewer, or a lousy editing job. But there’s not very much explanation of his views, just a lot of “I’m right because I said so!” His views are much more coherent than that.

What Mr. Leamas and his Honor mean, is that it is two separate CRIMES….
You have missed the point, AND you have straw-maned a counterpoint.

If you scroll back up, you’ll see that at 9:04, I was asking Northerner a question, not fabricating a strawman. Mr. Leamas, to date, has added nothing to the conversation.

He drew a distinction between the dictionary definition of “punishment” and its legal definition. He then applied the word “assault” instead, so I wanted to know how he felt about that.

If you and I are just arguing about which crimes to charge the individual with, no problem. I doubt, however, that Mr. Scalia would go along with an assault charge either.

Jeff, if you believe it is a living document we might as well throw it in the trash.

You’re clearly not reading what I’ve written, David. I’m saying Scalia isn’t originalist enough; he’s only selectively originalist, if you will.

Roe v wade took away rights of the Congress and state legislatures, to pass laws on abortion. You have no problem with this presumably because you agree with the decisions.

I strongly disagree with the way Roe was decided. I believe that it is proper for individual states to decide what, if any, criminal penalties should exist for performing and/or soliciting an abortion.

I would love to hear your opinion of the court if it ruled all gun laws unconstitutional, or that all public schools be turned over to private entities.

Again, you clearly have no idea who you’re talking to. Assuming the rulings were arrived upon appropriately, I would cheer them both.

Now go back form a coherent argument against positions I’ve actually taken or move along.

What Mr. Leamas and his Honor mean, is that it is two separate CRIMES. No one mentioned, or posited that an assault by an police officer (or a few jerks in the military) is somehow “ok”. The point is simply that the two are not related.

(But to many on the Left, they are.)

You have missed the point, AND you have straw-maned a counterpoint.

To reinterate:

Both are illegal.
Both are different crimes.
Both are punishable by law.

Both are PUNISHABLE by the standards and precident of law. THAT is why people were PUNISHED for ASSAULTING some prisoners at Abu Graib.