Justice Scalia criticizes 'moralist' judges

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ality/2446569/

ASHEVILLE, N.C. — A long-time Supreme Court justice continued to question why the nation's judges are able to hand down decisions based on morality in a speech Friday to the North Carolina Bar Association.

"In the United States, and indeed throughout the world, belief in the expert has been replaced by the judge moralist," said Scalia, who is the longest-serving member now on the high court. "We have become addicted to abstract moralizing. I am questioning the sanity of having value-laden judgments made by judges."

Scalia has said previously in remarks to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington that he considers himself one of a small number of judges, professors and lawyers known as originalists. He believes in giving the text of the Constitution the meaning it had when it was adopted; any changes need to be made through laws and constitutional amendments.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He is correct the job of a SCOTUS judge is to decide the constitutionality not the morality of a law. Too bad he wasn't lecturing Roberts on this during the bullshat votes casted upholding the clearly illegal and unconstitutional obamacare crap. Imagine that a "racist" like me favoring Thomas , Alito and Scalia over all the other judges Roberts included. Roberts being my least favorites since it is evident r that he clearly sold out doing that 180 on the obamacare case. A case they ruled not a tax in order to hear the case and upheld was a tax in order to uphold it as Constitutional. Truly a disgrace that indicated clear corruption was afoot there. -Tyr

[logroller]

He is correct the job of a SCOTUS judge is to decide the constitutionality not the morality of a law. Too bad he wasn't lecturing Roberts on this during the bullshat votes casted upholding the clearly illegal and unconstitutional obamacare crap. Imagine that a "racist" like me favoring Thomas , Alito and Scalia over all the other judges Roberts included. Roberts being my least favorites since it is evident r that he clearly sold out doing that 180 on the obamacare case. A case they ruled not a tax in order to hear the case and upheld was a tax in order to uphold it as Constitutional. Truly a disgrace that indicated clear corruption was afoot there. -Tyr

for one, its not a constitutional requirement that a tax not be considered by the court before its levied; so it's open to consideration by the justices whether the legislators intended it to be a tax. Indeed rule 10 states that A writ of certiorari is not a right, but one of judicial discretion. The ripeness, status of case or controversy, etc, these are all at the discretion of the justices. However, unlike certiorari, when ruling upon something that's not a fundamental right, a rational basis is the rule and it makes no judgment upon the necessity or efficacy of laws, merely if it violates the constitution. “The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits,” Roberts says. “The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.” So in the opinion of the court it didnt grant any favor to the law, it merely said that Congress has the power to do so, and furthermore that the people have a constitutional created means of recourse--ie vote em out.
If they had ruled that congress intended it to be a tax for purposes of consideration, and therefore not heard the case; how would that change anything for the better? Scotus did strike down parts of the law and were they not to hear the case those parts would still be in force. Do you think that the law, in its entirety, being in force is preferable to striking down parts of the law? Beware what you wish for.

[aboutime]

for one, its not a constitutional requirement that a tax not be considered by the court before its levied; so it's open to consideration by the justices whether the legislators intended it to be a tax. Indeed rule 10 states that A writ of certiorari is not a right, but one of judicial discretion. The ripeness, status of case or controversy, etc, these are all at the discretion of the justices. However, unlike certiorari, when ruling upon something that's not a fundamental right, a rational basis is the rule and it makes no judgment upon the necessity or efficacy of laws, merely if it violates the constitution. “The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits,” Roberts says. “The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.” So in the opinion of the court it didnt grant any favor to the law, it merely said that Congress has the power to do so, and furthermore that the people have a constitutional created means of recourse--ie vote em out.
If they had ruled that congress intended it to be a tax for purposes of consideration, and therefore not heard the case; how would that change anything for the better? Scotus did strike down parts of the law and were they not to hear the case those parts would still be in force. Do you think that the law, in its entirety, being in force is preferable to striking down parts of the law? Beware what you wish for.

Amazin' how you manage to Impress yourself so well.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Amazin' how you manage to Impress yourself so well.

OK, GIVE HIM CREDIT IT WASNT A BAD ARGUMENT. I disagree but still not bad at all. What he fails to get is they upheld the current state instead of instructing Congress to revamp the law thus having to have it voted on all over again with the a better foundation they tossed the ball back into the other yard and said let the states do their damn best redress at their own expense. Which the court is not there to defend the government but rather to defend the Constitution, the nation and the people. In essence they defended the status quo and told the opponents of this monstrosity to re-climb the mountain. Also its blatant hypocrisy to decide its not a tax so as to hear the case then immediately flip 180 degrees to say it is a tax in order to be able to justify keeping it as a law. In short they placed all the burden on those opposing it instead of telling Congress it was their boondoggle and they must fix it because as it is its Unconstitutional. Had Kagan not stayed in to vote how Obama and crew instructed her to when giving her the Justice position it would not have remained law. Obama has stacked the damn SCOTUS. TIS' WHY HE HAD THE SMUG LOOK ON HIS FACE WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT IT.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

for one, its not a constitutional requirement that a tax not be considered by the court before its levied; so it's open to consideration by the justices whether the legislators intended it to be a tax. Indeed rule 10 states that A writ of certiorari is not a right, but one of judicial discretion. The ripeness, status of case or controversy, etc, these are all at the discretion of the justices. However, unlike certiorari, when ruling upon something that's not a fundamental right, a rational basis is the rule and it makes no judgment upon the necessity or efficacy of laws, merely if it violates the constitution. “The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits,” Roberts says. “The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.” So in the opinion of the court it didnt grant any favor to the law, it merely said that Congress has the power to do so, and furthermore that the people have a constitutional created means of recourse--ie vote em out.
If they had ruled that congress intended it to be a tax for purposes of consideration, and therefore not heard the case; how would that change anything for the better? Scotus did strike down parts of the law and were they not to hear the case those parts would still be in force. Do you think that the law, in its entirety, being in force is preferable to striking down parts of the law? Beware what you wish for.

As law its Unconstitutional and Congress should have been told to rewrite it and vote on it again. Instead all burden was placed upon the people to come back again and try to get it struck down. Decision was totally wrong and haven't time now to go into it further but will try in the next few days. In short, you can't ride your dog into the rodeo by claiming it is a horse only to later enter it into the best dog contest and win the 1000 dollar first prize!!! SCOTUS did just that! Logic and common sense says something dark and evil was afoot in this decision. And most likely it was to get it settled , out of the way until after the Obama reelection campaign was decided. Remember had Kagan recused herself the law would have been struck down. Had Roberts not mysteriously flipped 180 degrees it would have never stood. Both hint at corruption and where there is smoke there is usually fire. -Tyr