Too much morality

My comments follow this brief article:

U.S. Supreme Court justice: 'Constitution is a static being'
By Alexandra Chachkevitch
Tribune reporter
8:52 PM CST, February 13, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday touted his approach to interpreting the federal Constitution that focuses on the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Scalia, a former University of Chicago law professor, called the “originalism” method “the lesser evil.”

“I don’t have to prove [it’s] perfect. The question is whether it’s better than everything else,” said Scalia, who addressed about 400 people at the University of Chicago Law School.

Originalism was behind his reasoning in a 2008Ö Supreme Court case that upheld the individual’s right to possess a firearm, he said. Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the case and argued that the Constitution’s specific language referred to possessing a firearm as a pre-existing right.

The court’s longest-serving justice, Scalia said he focuses on historical details and the original meaning of the Constitution to make his decisions, which may not always coincide with his own opinions.

“The Constitution is a static being,” said Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Opponents of originalism, who include fellow Justice Stephen Breyer, say that the Constitution was meant to be more flexible and adaptive to the changing times. Some phrases in the Constitution, such as “cruel and unusual” criminal punishment, are too broad to be interpreted as a specific permanent rule that does not allow for interpretation, critics of originalism say.

The Ninth Amendment, which protects the rights that the Founding Fathers did not list, is also cited as an argument against the originalism approach.

“Maybe there is a right to abortion,” Scalia said, answering a question from one of the students. “[The founders] didn’t specify, but they didn’t leave it up to the courts to do it either.”

At the end of his speech, Scalia, who taught at U of C’s law school from 1977 to 1982, advised future law students to pursue a job that would give them time to focus on their family and community – what he calls “a human existence.”

University of Chicago second-year law student Sarah Staudt, 24, said although she doesn’t share Scalia’s views, it was interesting to hear his perspective on the way the law should be interpreted.

“It was great to have him talk about the core of what he believes in,” she said.

The last time Scalia visited Chicago was in October, when he spoke during a conference on property rights at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

achachkevitch@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...on-is-a-static-being-20120213,0,7105426.story

I don’t speak legalese but I know Scalia is right for one reason:

Article V​

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I do not know how many lawyers, if any, will admit that Article V is telling them that courts should not be making social policy? If any group wants to implement a specific social policy to accommodate a belief they have to amend the Constitution. Scalia more or less said just that:

“Maybe there is a right to abortion,” Scalia said, answering a question from one of the students. “[The founders] didn’t specify, but they didn’t leave it up to the courts to do it either.”​

The “courts” means judges and lawyers. Their influence should not extend beyond criminal and civil cases where verdicts only impact a criminal defendant and litigants in a civil suit. In short: Judicial influence should be restricted to courtrooms. The minute a decision strays into social policy impacting everyone —— that ruling should be thrown out along with the judge.

Jury verdicts and silver-tongued mouthpieces should also be thrown out whenever they con jurors into making social policy.

And have you noticed how the folks who champion democracy avoid amending the Constitution in order to achieve their goals? If “Of, by, and for the people” means anything it means amending the Constitution with the consent of the majority.

Finally, there is a sickness in this country; i.e., there is too much morality. Every individual, every group, not only assumes moral superiority they insist on imposing their peculiar cure-all on everyone else.

It’s no wonder totalitarians are winning. Everybody is sick of every moral utopia except their own. Too much morality is fertile ground for totalitarians who promise to unite every morality into one size fits all.

Individuals are the worst. I’ve known many who never missed an opportunity to point out the best course of conduct in whatever flawed conduct they saw in others. Give that kind an opening and they invariably spread their sickness by expressing incurable touchy-feely crapola. That kind is easily handled with a smack in the teeth. Dealing with institutional morality is not so easy. Too much morality is most dangerous in three of America’s most influential institutions:

1. The government. A desire to legislate love has become the primary requisite for government service.

2. The legal profession. What better group to define morality than the greediest, most immoral, most corrupt people in every society since the beginning of time?

3. Journalism. “I want to make a difference.” Need I say more about today’s journalists?

 

The Judicial branch, and the Supreme Court specifically, is designed to be one of the Checks and Balances established by the founders.

Article III, Section 2: The Judicial power shall extend to ALL Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;....

This empowers the SC to ensure that the laws established by Congress are legal under the Constitution.

Our founders meant to use our system to protect the minorty from majority rule because they understood that what the majority wants may not always be what is best or fair.

When the rights of African-American citizens were denied their rights by the majority, it was up to the SC to declare that Seperate was NOT equal. They abolished Jim Crowe-era laws as unconstitutional and they were criticized for being activist judges. Once again, they did their job as directed by the Constitution.

 

I do not understand the title of your thread. It says "Too Much Morality", not "Too Much Judicial Activism", so the OP just doesn't seem to be relevant to the title. I don't see how anyone could think that there is "too much morality", especially in government.

 

To fifthofnovember: If you read it over and over again I’m sure it will come to you.