Scalia Gone Too Far
Posted on May 19, 2006
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been on target on a great number of things of late, but his comments to the National Italian American Foundation went over the edge.
Many of the Conservative remarks that the Justice Scalia has made in recent months have had a “way to go” reaction from our side of the fence, but today he told Congress in affect to mind their own business.
“It’s none of your business,” he said, referring to Congress. “No one is more opposed to the use of foreign law than I am, but I’m darned if I think it’s up to Congress to direct the court how to make its decisions.” SOURCE
I’m sorry Justice Scalia, but your job is to interpret law. Congress’ job is to make law. If they make a law restricting the basis for your decision to the laws that they have made (both present Congresses and previous Congresses), you are obliged by the Constitution to follow that law.
There is a provision in the Constitution that provides for the removal of a sitting Justice. Which can only be initiated by the House of Representatives and conducted by the Senate. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the proceedings. But it is the Senate which serves as the jury. So is it wise to alienate Congress?
I’m not advocating the impeachment of Justice Scalia. But, those who make the decisions on that matter are those that he is criticising in his comments.
Congress is merely attempting to curtail the encroachment of the Judicial branch of the US government into the Legislative branch. They are discussing the possibility of eliminating an activist judge from applying foreign law to find precedent to rule in a manner consistent with their personal politics.
And I’d like to remind the Justice that Congress is the collective representative of the people. We elect them to serve us and make laws that we favor. If they don’t do their jobs, they can be removed. Federal judges and Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life. Congress represents us and judges represent the law.
Justice Scalia’s comments are trekking dangerously close to violating the separation of powers. Congress as our representatives are required to act on our behalf. And by passing a law restricting the Judicial branch to US law in establishing precedent, they by definition of their office are doing the will of the people.
/rant
For those that don’t think Congress has the power to put limits on the judicial branch, I ask you…who does? Lobo closes the debate in the comment with this.
Read Article III, sections I and II and Article VI.
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
» Filed Under Activist Judges, News, Supreme Court
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “Scalia Gone Too Far”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I’m sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one.
Congress are to keep an eye on them, it’s not their job to tell them how to do it. By congress telling them how they should rule oversteps the oversight of Congress.
Is it not an overstepping of powers for Congress to direct the Judicial branch? If they see the Judicial branch overstepping what they are supposed to do, then they take action via impeachment or whatever LEGAL means they have to remove rogue justices. They don’t tell judges how to do their job.
Yes, congress make the laws, but those laws have to be within their restrictions of the constitution.
And you would say that a law that restricted judges from using foreign law in their interpretation of the Constitution would be outside the constitution?
The federal courts violated the separation of powers when they started making laws from the bench. The balance of power is a constitutional ideal that you hear little or nothing about now. What they preach now is judicial independence which just encourages judicial tyranny.
A law that restricted judges from using foreign law in their interpretation of the Constitution would, imho, absolutely be outside the Constitution. As you said yourself Jay, the role of Congress is to pass laws, not to tell the Court how to interpret them.
Using your logic, then would it be permissible for a judge to impose a sentence of amputation of a hand for a 1st offense shoplifter? According to Saudi law that is the punishment. Or how about death for adultery for a wife who cheats? Again, this is the law in several Muslim nations.
Foreign law should be left OUT of American courts. American judges should be limited to interpreting and referencing American law when deciding cases. This is the goal of the actions pending in Congress. This is an idea that is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. That is the reason this is even in the news. Senators and Congressmen have had their offices flooded with calls, emails, and faxes relating to this very issue.
I think we are all in agreement that foreign law should be left out of the courts. It seems the others disagree on the limits of the other government branches to make that happen. I agree with you Gribbit. The use of foreign law is quite dangerous, and Scalia’s influence has not put a stop to it alone. One senator said it well, Scalia needs their help making this happen whether he wants it or not.
If, as the other commintators seem to think…and Justice Scalia seem to think…that acting on this by the legislative branch is beyond their limits…then I don’t think Congress would even be attempting it. I wonder if Congress were to make it a law, if the Court would have the power to shoot it down as unconstitutional? That would be sad and ironic.
Something needs to be done to limit the runaway power of the judicial branch. I ask, if Congress can’t do that, then who the hell can?
“…the role of Congress is to pass laws, not to tell the Court how to interpret them.”
Read Article III, sections I and II and Article VI.
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Thank you Lobo, I think that pretty much wins the debate.
“Justice Scalia’s comments are trekking dangerously close to violating the separation of powers. ”
you’ve got this kind of backwards.
Look at the Founding Document. The Declaration.
It says that the opinions of mankind ought to be taken into consideration.
The problem is that none of the branches of government are following the Constitution.
McCain-Feingold ring a bell?
Bush says it was unConstitutional and signed it.
If no one is following their oaths of office, fixing the judge problem is the least of your worries.
==============================
Or take the medical cartel supported by the FDA. Where did the Constitution give the Feds that power, which before the FDA was a State function. i.e. the problem didn’t start with FDR.
We needed a Constitutional Amdmt. to prohibit alcohol. So where is the drug prohibition amdmt.? Now, admitedly drug prohibition is popular. Does popularity give the Feds the right to violate their limited powers?
As I said the problem goes way beyond judges.
BTW a signer of the Declaration, Dr. Benjamin Rush, predicted the cartelization of medicine if medical liberty was not an explicit part of the Constitution.
Surprisingly, or not, the ACLU considers drug prohibition a usurpation of State powers. Which it is.
BTW why isn’t there a right wing ACLU? Aren’t our liberties important to the right?
Of course not, if it interferes with programs the right wants. Which makes the right no more interested in Constitutional government than the left. The only difference is the agenda.
I’ll believe the right is interested in Constitutional government when they start a campaign against the FDA and the Controlled Substance Act. I expect to see such a move when hell freezes over.
If the FDA was advisrory rather than regulatory I would have no problem with it.
I was going to engage you in conversation before you started answering your own questions msimson. Answering your own questions is a sure sign of preconcieved notions and a made up mind. I would like to point past your ignorance to some of the many organizations that protect our liberties that do lean to the right. ADF, ACLJ, Thomas More Law Center, Liberty Counsel, and Civil Rights Union.
The ADF etc. need better press. In a sense my ignorance is due to their lack.
For instance why was it the ACLU that defened Rush? And if others did as well why didn’t they flood the zone?
And if there really is a right wing ACLU (or several) why isn’t even one standing for medical liberty? Or maybe I haven’t heard about it.
Why can you get all kinds of drugs in Mexico without a Drs. prescription but not in the land of the free? Take Tagamet. Before it went off patent I needed a $40 doctors visit to get it. Now it is over the counter. Your medical cartel in action.
Before the FDA changed its rules, drugs only needed to be tested for safety. Cost - a few million. Now they need to be tested for efficasy. Cost - 100s of millions. Only established companies can afford this new regime (which is now a few decades old). Your medical cartel in action.
I’d love to see a medical liberty organization. Even a lefty one. Ever hear of such a thing?
Who stands against the DEA progrom against pain doctors? When did the DEA get a practice of medicine portfolio?
BTW I’m willing to engage.
*
Interesting article on where it all started to go bad.
The Progressive Era.