Sunday, October 22, 2006



Silly me. I thought we still had the same Constitution we've always had. But, according to Justice Antonin Scalia, there is a "new philosophy of the Constitution". Mind you, I'm just part of the reading public who Scalia clearly disdains since he states that "nobody would read it " if the press were to report the details of the justice's rulings.

Of course, I always thought that judges and the courts were independant and approached each case with an open mind and no agenda of their own. The esteemed Scalia has certainly disavowed me of that notion with his statements following:

"'You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably and unqualifiably a good thing," Scalia said. "It may not be. It depends on what your courts are doing."

Scalia added, "The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent."

Policy makers. Hmmm. Golly, I'm a whole lot dumber than I thought. All this time, I've thought that Congress and the state legislatures made the laws and the executive branch made... er... policies for the country, in addition to upholding the law (ahh, pardon me while I have a chuckle).

Scalia went on to blame the blogosphere (who else?) for taking a toll on the judiciary. Poor judiciary, what with us expecting unbiased, reasonable, Constitutional rulings and all.

I got a little carried away with some of Scalia's statements, so I posted my rant at Demokat because I didn't want to burden Paul's site with my viewpoints on misogyny, abortion, etc. Demokat deals with religion in politics and vice versa, and individual rights, with a feminist slant, so it has a better home there.

Read the whole AP story by John Heilprin here.

No comments: