Rant on Scalia

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).

pol·i·cies1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel
policy.2.a. A course of action, guiding principle, or procedure considered expedient, prudent, or advantageous: Honesty is the best policy.b. Prudence, shrewdness, or sagacity in practical matters.

Supreme Court Justices were supposed to only interpret the Constitution and make sure that none of those laws violated the Constitution. That's what they taught me in Social Studies and Civics classes.

No. Abortion (what else?) changed all that:

"'Take the abortion issue,' he said. 'Whichever side wins, in the courts, the other side feels cheated. I mean, you know, there's something to be said for both sides.'"'The court could have said, 'No, thank you.' The court have said, you know, 'There is nothing in the Constitution on the abortion issue for either side,'" Scalia said. "It could have said the same thing about suicide, it could have said the same thing about ... you know, all the social issues the courts are now taking.'""Scalia said courts didn't use to decide social issues like that."'It is part of the new philosophy of the Constitution,' he said. 'And when you push the courts into that, and when they leap into it, they make themselves politically controversial. And that's what places their independence at risk.'"

Here I thought that the 10th amendment granted some power to the people. Call me optimistic, but I kind of thought that meant that, at minimum, a woman's body belongs to her, but maybe it belongs to the government. Except it doesn't say that it does in the Constitution, does it?

Wouldn't that mean that any laws claiming virtual ownership and determination by the state of what a woman may and may not do with her body would be un-Constitutional? So, wouldn't that be a Constitutional ruling rather than a policy?

Oh my. I guess it all depends on your point of view. Like if you're a woman who believes that she owns her body or if you're a big, fat old man who wants to make all women bow down to him and do as he wants them to do with their body, according to his own personal, religious beliefs.

Read the whole AP story by John Heilprin here.

Uber President?

Back to my favorite subject to rage about and Keith, my favorite dream lover.

Read the entire interview with Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

If only the president was sane and honest... but he'd still be president.

"OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

TURLEY: It does. And it’s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn’t rely on their good motivations. Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

It couldn’t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we’ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it’s otherworldly."

Don't count on the Supreme Court to save us, either...

"OLBERMANN: Is there one defense against this, the legal challenges against particularly the suspension or elimination of habeas corpus from the equation? And where do they stand, and how likely are they to overturn this action today?

TURLEY: Well, you know what? I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over—taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along.

And so we may have, in this country, some type of uber-president, some absolute ruler, and it’ll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial."