Quote of the day—Justice Antonin Scalia

I don’t see how there’s any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a — as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn’t it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons — that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Justice Antonin Scalia
March 18, 2008
During oral arguments in the case of District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller.
[We lost our strongest ally on the Supreme court in the battle against anti-gun people yesterday. He will be greatly missed.

See also other quotes and references I have posted about him.—Joe]

19 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Justice Antonin Scalia

  1. I am more frightened than ever for our Republic. The depth of my fear is almost irrational. I fear what comes next; I fear a mad man in the White House; I fear a spineless Senate not believing this is the hill to die on; I fear an ignorant and stupid electorate, who, even if the Senate does the right thing, could still elect a tyrant as bad as we have now; I fear a country where the death of one man puts this much turmoil in our lives.

  2. So, here we are. If the GOP gives in to Obama and allows him to place another liberal on the court or if Ginsberg decides to retire and allow for a “packing” of the court, we’re done. At least if we allow ourselves to remain part of that political entity.

    Consider what this year has been like with the Presidential election circus. Now, (RIP) Justice Scalia has passed away and McConnell comes out and says that there shouldn’t be a Justice appointed until the next President takes office. More than before, that’s looking like Trump. Although I have my misgivings about Trump, he’s likely to make a better choice than either Obama or Hillery. Now, think about 11 months of progressively worse infighting in the Senate IF McConnell does refuse to confirm a nominee… The last seven years will look like the Democrats and Republicans were sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya.

    I honestly believe that this event could be the spark that sets off a series of events that lead to the dissolution of these united States.

    Jeff B.

    • “I honestly believe that this event could be the spark that sets off a series of events that lead to the dissolution of these united States.”

      I know! Isn’t it MARVELOUS? *chomps popcorn*

      OK, in all honesty, no, it would not be marvelous. It would be bad. And that’s if the Turtle, Mitch the Bitch, somehow discovers his FUCKING TESTICLES. If the GOPe in Congress folds, we might as well resign ourselves to becoming another leftist shithole in a generation or two.

      The cards are not TOTALLY bad here, though. Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions are on the Judiciary Committee; I can’t see either of them letting one of Bumbles’s picks through without bleeding them. And while I am not Chuck Grassley’s biggest fan, his ego won’t let him stand aside. He’ll be eager to tear off some chunks too.

      *sigh* Best case scenario, the GOP stands firm, and the Democrats shift from the Presidential race to trying to grab as many Senate seats as they can. Whether they’re successful or not, well, hard to say. I am tired of holding my nose when voting GOP, myself… but damn it, do we dare let the Dems have the Senate back at this point? I know, I KNOW, Ryan and McConnell have shown all the opposition of a prostitute in a ‘barbarian ravishing’ roleplay. But damn, this is going to be tense.

  3. I just want to point out one very sad thing. How is it that electing a Supreme Court justice is inherently a highly political thing?

    It’s just that the role they are supposed to fulfill is to objectively evaluate laws to test their Constitutionality. They should be apolitical. They are not! Hence the fight. Look at that slut Kagan who was an advocate for obamacare who did not recuse herself. The Left truly does not care for the rule of law or sane and rational legal decisions. Look at Roe v Wade, Kilo, DOMA, Dredd Scott, obamacare, and many others in which governmental interests or personal biases ruled the day. Crappy decisions.

    This says that they are merely unelected, activist judges who impose things on us without any recourse and without legitimacy. I know it has been this way for a long time with threats to pack the court, borking candidates, litmus tests, and so on.

    The only thing they should be asked is whether they double-dog swear to uphold the Constitution as intended and written without exception. Yeah, that would be nice. I must be snorting unicorn farts.

    • Unfortunately, the court apparently became a “political thing” quite early in the 1800s.

      I, and others, figure that certain cases were thought up by political factions in the government and tried at the SC simply to give the justices cover to usurp powers and see if they could get away with it without a public reaction.

      Nothing happened, so………………

      A little bit here. A little bit there, and it’s like a snowball rolling downhill. Pretty soon you have “activist judges” (each called that by the opposing philosophical side of the political spectrum).

      Emanations of Penumbras that find rights (some that were never heard of before in human civilization) that are given much more time and care in defining and protecting than those explicitly enumerated.

      All justice is now is a ‘crap shoot’. The vast majority of judges, at all levels are nothing more than political animals, no more or less political than any other politician, except they can’t be ‘unelected’, thus we see the senate cat fights about federal judicial appointments.

      They will rewrite a law. A fine (unconstitutional) is now a tax (constitutional) and for the first time in U.S. history a person is required by law to engage in a commercial act (buy insurance).
      They will swallow a camel to find a reason to rule for, or strain at a gnat to rule against (someone else a few centuries back mentioned this, so there’s nothing new under the sun) whatever case comes their way merely due to their personal politics. Damn the Constitutions. Damn the Laws. Damn the Will of The People.

      “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”

      I fear that they [The People] may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.
      ― Daniel Webster

      The people have let the government get away with it. And, right now, there may not be a way ‘back’, it may only be ‘through’.

      But I digress.

      As ‘good’ as Scalia was at ruling in Heller & McDonald, read all of his findings and dicta on those two cases.
      Even as he was as close to being an ‘originalist’ as we’ve seen in our lifetimes. He was still a squish in places.

      Guns in the hands of the unwashed scare the living daylights out of the political oligarchs. Scalia was just less scared.

  4. “Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Everyone knows very well that such is the meaning of the second amendment, and that “the people”, just as elsewhere in the constitution, means the individual. The argument then is between those who acknowledge the truth and those who hate it.

    There are some in China, I hear, who love America and are therefore praying for the rapid downfall of America. The idea being that we must lose it before we’ll understand what we’ve lost, and then we’ll rebuild it along with Americans from around the world.

  5. I don’t think that McConnell or the Senate should just say they won’t replace Scalia during Obama’s term (end of discussion). Obama has said that he will make a nomination. Let’s see who he offers. Although I have a VERY hard time imagining that he would offer someone acceptable, if, by some miracle, he does, why not approve them? Yes, I think it will be a cold day in hell if that happens, but it is possible……

    • People also need to remember that the Senate could also go back to Democratic control in January. Depending on who wins the presidency and what happens in the senate, it could actually be worse to wait.

  6. On Scalia, I’m not conservative but I always admired his passion for the law and his colorful writing. I personally feel it’s better when the court is split (1/2 conservative, 1/2 liberal, some swing) because we get more thoughtful decisions. It stops us from going too far either way. So, I kind of hope Obama will nominate someone who is fairly conservative, not too liberal. Hopefully someone who talks more than Justice Thomas.

    • UBU, don’t worry about how Thomas doesn’t question the lawyers during oral arguments.
      That process these days resembles nothing more than Kabuki Theater.
      Read his opinions, both assenting as dissenting.

    • The failure of this logic of balance is that the Constitution is basically a conservative document and is not meant for capricious changes when 4 justices plus a swing vote go that way. It is actually a very fixed document and any interpretation that grants new, never seen before “rights” or infringes in areas where the government is restricted by the Constitution is an affront to it and to correct judicial interpretation.

      Eventually every precept, idea, restriction, or limit on government will be overturned when there are 5 justices that think so. the best example has to be Roe v Wade where a right was invented out of thin air and the ruling was such that states could no longer decide on their own on the subject of abortion. That is tyranny. that is judicial activism.

  7. The timing of justice Scalia’s death couldn’t be worse. It makes me want to reach for my tin foil hat. But, he WAS 79. ‘Natural causes seems reasonable and likely.
    I’ve always said the meanest thing God ever did was making dog’s lives so short (compared to ours). This has to rate as the second meanest…
    No doubt Ozero will nominate a lefty ideologue, and I hope the senate Borks him/her. Let the chips fall where they may this next election. Maybe uncle Bernie will be elected and we can all move to Venezuela… :-O

  8. I predict that O will nominate one hard-left ideologue after another, always a woman or minority, so that he can play the race card or the woman-hater card against the republicans. Rather than have that crap thrown at them one after another, they will cave, knowing that they need to put up a “good show” for the base, but want someone that will support their big government / big business / donor-class establishment support legalisms.

    in short, the odds are that we are screwed. Totally screwed.

    • I predict hearings will be delayed as much as possible and no one nominated by Obama will be approved–unless it is after the new president and senate are sworn in and happen to like the same person.

      • This one is hard to call. If they piss off enough Democrats and they all turn out in mass (like they did with the Clinton impeachment), that could be really bad for the Republicans facing election. There are 34 senate seats up for grabs and 24 of them are held by Republicans. The Dems need to gain 4 or 5 to turn the Senate back to Dem control.

        I think we should all wait to see who he picks.

        • Well, after 7 years of history, I don’t think it’s necessary to wait and see. The track record is overwhelming that Obama will aim to screw the country.

  9. The local cable news station on Saturday evening features an interview with a hard-left “law professor” (from BU) who suggested that Obama could make a recess appointment. Yes, I suppose so. It didn’t seem to have occurred to this clown that recess appointments are only for a limited time. But then again, he also described Obama as a “constitutional scholar” which gives you a good estimate of his thought processes, or lack of same.

    • Calling Obama a “Constitutional Scholar” is like calling Satan a “biblical Scholar.” Yeah, he might be able to quote a passage or three, but his goals are not alined with the author, and he may not be the best person to consult on matters of interpretation.

Comments are closed.