DMN
“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.”
He said law schools don’t adequately emphasize that decisions should reflect the letter of the law.
He spoke of schoolchildren coming to visit the Supreme Court and calling the Constitution a “living document.”
“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead,” he said.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Tell that to CJ Roberts, Justice Scalia.
He’s someone who helped kill it…
JohnGalt23 on January 29, 2013 at 9:43 PM
Let’s be honest, the constition is just Dead Dead Dead regardless of interpretation.
ninjapirate on January 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM
I like the comments,everyone is wondering where the rest of the article is. Some reporter should lose his job. Well, actually a lot of reporters should lose their jobs.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM
According to a commenter who was there, Justice Scalia went on to say that the Constitution is enduring.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Hush now, don’t confuse the low information readers.
Its the DMN, SOP.
cozmo on January 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM
LIke he said it is not a living document.
CW on January 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Well, the word choice for the soundbite leaves something to be desired, but I like the sentiment.
Timin203 on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 PM
LOL — I didn’t even have to click on the link to know this was Scalia. I love this guy.
NoLeftTurn on January 29, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Well they sure didn’t over burden them with the word count.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Lots of ignorance in the comments. No surprise, I suppose. Low information voters are everywhere. I wonder, if you polled 100 random people on the street and asked them if you can change the Constitution, how many of them would know there’s an amendment process? Or how it works? This is yet something else that the leftists have co-opted. Hence they peddle this fiction to the idiot masses that the Constitution is a “living document” and that anyone who opposes judicial activism must be an old relic who wants to return to the days of slavery and when women weren’t allowed to vote.
NoLeftTurn on January 29, 2013 at 10:21 PM
Fuuny, that’s what Obama thinks.
katy on January 29, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Context is every thing on this. Dead in that done and in the dust bin of history and time for a new one…. OR 236 years and still going strong as it does not changes fast like a life but changes as fast as granite.
tjexcite on January 29, 2013 at 10:33 PM
and this is how the leftist journos work, day in day out…whether it is some stringer in CT or some clown in DRW, further the narrative. Leave off a few words, edit, ellipses, whatever it takes
r keller on January 29, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Trippy. Didn’t recognize him at first, but that professor (Garner) and I were classmates in high school.
I do loves me some Scalia!
4Grace on January 29, 2013 at 11:12 PM
The Republic and the Constitution are perfectly viable. They were both designed to outlive their original forms which is why they are both relevant today.
lexhamfox on January 29, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Obligatory video comment
Shy Guy on January 29, 2013 at 11:45 PM
They were designed to outlive their original forms via the amendment process.
Not ridiculous re-interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and any other sort of penumbras and emanations.
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 11:56 PM
So simple that it is amazing how many people don’t get it.
besser tot als rot on January 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Went to a luncheon with Scalia not too long ago. He is very entertaining.
besser tot als rot on January 30, 2013 at 12:02 AM
And what is dead may never die…
or so I learned from watching Game of Thrones.
Sgt Steve on January 30, 2013 at 12:10 AM
No document is a living document. Such a claim is pure stupidity. Documents are static.
If the Constitution somehow changed/evolved it’s own words, THEN I would agree that it’s a living document.
blink on January 30, 2013 at 12:24 AM
This comment is completely meaningless.
blink on January 30, 2013 at 12:25 AM
I was at this lecture! It was so great, I especially liked that there was a clear distinction made between political opinion and legal opinion. Garner had mentioned that he agreed with Scalia on the law 100%, but was personally a liberal on issues like Gun Control, Gay Marriage, etc. Scalia also mentioned that if a judge agrees politically with every case he decides, he’s a bad judge.
Scalia’s trademark wit also kept everyone interested and entertained. I got his book signed afterward too! He wouldn’t sign my pocket Constitution though…
vegconservative on January 30, 2013 at 1:00 AM
Professor, I read that twice and still think you are full of stink.
arnold ziffel on January 30, 2013 at 1:13 AM
Maybe I should think about your post again. I’m going by your your prior posts re. other issues—and maybe I misunderstood. Sorry.
arnold ziffel on January 30, 2013 at 1:19 AM
It’s entirely accurate. We have changed as a nation and the constitution has changed with us. The United States has expanded voting and abolished slavery. Of course there have been mistakes along the way but the power is still in our hands as a people to correct them or make more mistakes. We are a more perfect union than originally conceived. It remains a wonderful guide with built in flexibility and protections against our worst instincts.
lexhamfox on January 30, 2013 at 2:00 AM
Brilliant critique. Keep thinking.
lexhamfox on January 30, 2013 at 2:04 AM
Anything that can be amended is alive.
profitsbeard on January 30, 2013 at 3:26 AM
For today’s impressionable, gullible, metrosexually twistable people, first they buy a “living holiday tree” and then they write to agree that the Constitution is “a living document.”
Then they schedule their abortion appointment for the next week because that “punishment” is so darn inconvenient and it’s, you know, just tissue anyway.
I like Scalia’s point here. The Constitution is as is, it’s an ever-fixed point.
How it, and our nation, have been bastardized is by marketing language that defines legos as weapons and an absolute as flexible.
Lourdes on January 30, 2013 at 3:29 AM
No, not at all.
Because an amendment does not alter the original thing (in this case, the Constitution).
When you place a domino atop a countertop, you may have “amended” the height of the structure, but you have not made the countertop itself any higher. One plus one is still one plus one, one and then the other.
The AMENDMENT is one, the Constitution in it’s original remains as is.
Lourdes on January 30, 2013 at 3:32 AM