Leave it to Antonin Scalia to speak the truth, if rudely:
People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
[...]
"The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
Comments
Lovely addition to our political discourse. Perhaps Justice Scalia needs a quick lesson in tolerance and civility? Or at least a reminder when he might think before speaking.
Good for Scalia. I hope "Scalito" feels exactly the same way about the legal document that has made America possible for two centuries.
By the way, I don't see how any group can claim the Constitution and Bill of Rights are putty in their hands while they defend the First Amendment to the last comma -- so they can stay out of jail while they spew hatred for everything else America stands for.
I know: But how do I REALLY feel? :^))
No problem with your post, Steve, and there's certainly nothing to be ashamed of to be passionate (even if I disagree with you). My problem was when a Supreme Court Justice labels people with whom he disagrees as "idiots."
No feeling of shame should be inferred from my ending comment, just a little humor about the fact that I know when I'm being blunt. Nor do I think Scalia's directness is significant in today's high-decibel partisan environment.
There is an unsettling trend these days wherein people who detest certain statements in the Constitution will try to re-define matters of proveable fact by mis-characterizing them as matters of opinion. They imply that everyone's opinion is equally valid, and that the "question" they themselves invented is therefore "legislatable."
I'm sure Scalia intended to be blunt about the text of the Constitution's being borne out by the intent of the founding fathers. More people should be aware that most if not all of the founders' intention is clear from their own surviving papers and letters in the Library of Congress. There is a lot less to debate than malcontents would have us believe.
You can find people who will disagree that red is red, white is white, and blue is blue of course. They will call their understanding "complex" rather than befogged, and forge ahead.
The one thing such disagreeable folk will NEVER do is make the simple trip to the Library of Congress and find out what the founders REALLY meant in their own words. That would spoil their case.
I guess you could say Scalia is one of the people we are paying to know the founders' actual intent and abide by it. We pay him to assure that any attempt to subvert our bedrock texts in court is blocked.
You can't CHANGE the Constitution or Bill of Rights with a court opinion. Not even a Supreme Court opinion. You certainly can't rewrite the founders by sending up a new bill. You've got to have at minimum an amendment, and at maximum a constitutional convention to do that.
If Scalia could have gotten that point across with civility, I'm sure he would have. But I don't have to wonder why he selected the heavier caliber.