March 19, 2009

"I'm not about to tell the people of New York state that their state is no longer bound by the First Amendment. I think there'd be hell to pay."

Scalia's not about to say that in a Supreme Court opinion, but he does say it.

6 comments:

Jerome Cole said...

I think Scalia forgot to read the 14th Amendment.

Simon said...

Amusing quote from Chesterton. Of course, Scalia's right about stare decisis (if wrong about incorporation, at least in my own view - I agree with Justice Black about that); some things are just water over the dam. And no, Jerome, I doubt he somehow forgot about the Fourteenth Amendment.

traditionalguy said...

Is Scalia suggesting the limiting of the Supreme Court's power to overrule the 50 States' individual interpretations of the 14th Amendment's application within their borders? That would be fun to see in practice. Then the State Supreme Court's appointments and re-elections will become the political crusaders target of Choice. The Constitutional Law professors would become a political pressure point also.

rdkraus said...

Jerome

Which part of the 14th actually says that the first 10 are incorporated, ie apply to the states?

Simon said...

rdkraus, is that a rhetorical question, or are you actually asking.

Methadras said...

Scalia is making the distinction that as a person he understand the need for precedent and may not like it, but also understands that you can't undermine an entire set of precedents by having every argument against a statute, law, or legislation be treated as a new occurrence. I'm inclined to not agree with him. Law is messy like spilling milk, but unlike law you clean up the milk. With law/precedent, you have to live with it.