ipl-logo

Analyzing Scalia's West Side Story

498 Words2 Pages

Scalia was a judge that was secure in his opinions. He has an interesting opinion on how to interpret the constitution. The way he expresses his ideas sometimes are undermining to the ideas of others. His love for arguing seems to make him interesting but overbearing. Scalia has changed and strengthened the views of others by using his voice. Scalia believes in originalism. This is the idea of interpreting the constitution the way it was meant by the people who ratified it over 200 years ago. This is the idea that the constitution should be durable. This durability should not be seen as flexibility considering that would be changing the intent for the nation they created. He does not like activism or interpreting the constitution based on …show more content…

He uses references to pop culture to make his writing more interesting. One case was using West Side Story. This encourages others to read his works. The more who read, the more likely someone is to see his side as being correct. Spreading originalism is something that he does around the world and is something that can be done with the interesting arguments presented in a fashion that is better understood by the general public. People would also find it amusing to see the rude commentary he has about other people’s …show more content…

She sees the constitution as evolving because the constitution should apply to the people who now have and deserve the right to be a part of “We the people”. Ginsburg has endured some of Scalia’s lack of respect in the form of vicious insults. Luckily for him, the comments do not offend her. With a natural first reaction of exasperation, she takes his words as a challenge. This challenge is to make him look as though his views portray the insults that he vomited. There’s a way to live up to his insult and make him look wrong. She has the ability to make what he believes to be implausible,

Show More
Related

  • Scalia's Interpretation Of The Living Constitution

    65 Words  | 1 Pages

    I disagree that the “Living Constitution” will destroy it because society changes and the laws that govern it need to change also. I think that Scalia was stuck in an outdated mindset of viewing the constitution. I agree with you that Breyer 's argument was the better of the two, and I agree that the interpretation of the constitution should be flexible and not be fixed.

    Read More

  • How Did Patrick Henry Contribute To Government

    646 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his speech, he argues that the Constitution is incompatible with republicanism in that it doesn’t support the

    Read More

  • The House That Scalia Built Summary

    234 Words  | 1 Pages

    Stiehm’s tone in the column comes off as mocking as she says “[Scalia] was often callous in withering dissents.” Stiehm claims,“The house Scalia Built” will fall because of his death. She is referring to the Supreme court. Stiehm mocks Scalia by

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton's Report Of 1800 On The Virginia Resolution

    243 Words  | 1 Pages

    SCOTUS is a far cry from Alexander Hamilton’s claim in The Federalist #78 that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because, the judiciary lacked the powers of the purse and of the sword, it had neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Litmus Tests For Potential Appellate Judges

    787 Words  | 4 Pages

    The concerns that Senators have about federal appeals court nominees is unjust and unneeded. The only people in the court system who have the ability to overturn laws of legislation and policy are Supreme Court Judges, so it is wrong to subject appeals court nominees to strict ideological tests that the Justices are given. The Justices are the only people who can overturn or rule things unconstitutional, whether it is from cases, executive orders, or when the bureaucracy overstep its’ bounds. It does not matter what an appeals court nominees personal opinion is on a case, because he or she will be following the precedent already set up by the Supreme Court. It does not matter what the nominees opinion is on Roe v. Wade, because as an appellate

    Read More

  • Ruther Bader Ginsburg Analysis

    272 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ruther Bader Ginsburg “looked for cases where laws reflecting, gender stereotypes actually penalized men, not women.” (Tobin 82) As a result, out of all of cases she argued, Ruther Bader Ginsburg won five out of six cases. These cases which normally benefitted men, led to the downfall of many more laws that penalized women.” (Tobin 82) Ruther Bader Ginsburg also like topics involving race. In the particular case Grutter she changed her habits.

    Read More

  • District Of Columbia V. Miller Case Summary

    624 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, Heller overturns this decision by the means of Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment provided above. Since the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause does not limit its operative clause, the Amendment can be interpreted as an individual right available to all citizens of the United States, not just those who serve in a

    Read More

  • What Is The Theme Of Judicial Tyranny The New Kings Of America

    1094 Words  | 5 Pages

    However, the new trend has been to make the document mean what you want or to just disregard it and issue new laws. The modern view is that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is (p.30)”. Sutherland throughout the book that this is assumption not correct, because if this were true, than the final authority would rest with the judges, not with the people. This line of thinking is dangerous, as it makes those tasked with interpreting the Constitution essentially able to edit it to say whatever they want, regardless of what the document actually says on a matter. With the judges making wild rulings about freedoms and laws, they are undermining and assuming the duties of Congress, something they are clearly prohibited from

    Read More

  • Clarence Thomas: Supreme Court Justice

    483 Words  | 2 Pages

    While Justice Thomas is famous for his silence during oral argument, this does not mean that his lack of input in cases makes the other justices wary of where he may stand in issues because of his known conservative reputation. What drives his conservative stance on the Supreme Court is his “originalist” philosophy which calls for interpreting the Constitution as the Founding Fathers primary intents were. As Ralph Rossum states “During his years on the Court, Thomas has pursued an original general meaning approach to constitutional interpretation; he has been unswayed by claims of precedent, by the gradual buildup of interpretations that, to his mind, come to distort the original meaning of the constitutional provision in question, leading to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions” meaning that Thomas determines cases based on strict interpretation of the Constitution and does not think that neither precedent or stare decisis have any weight on recent cases. The only document that has a true significant precedent is the Constitution itself. His judicial philosophy surely makes him an enigma to

    Read More

  • John Marshall Research Paper

    439 Words  | 2 Pages

    He wanted the court to present a clear opinion on the matters. With Marshalls outspoken personality, most justices followed his views. But his views were not always followed by everyone. His view was shot down in the case of Ogden v. Saunders of 1827. His interpretation of the Constitution was this, “To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail, that this intention must be collected from its words, that its words are to be understood in the sense in which that are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended.

    Read More

  • The New Deal Dbq Essay

    1339 Words  | 6 Pages

    FDR believed Americans must save the Constitution by changing the Supreme Court’s unlimited powers. He explained that since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the court has become more and more powerful. To change this, FDR proposed that whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new judge shall be appointed. The plan had two major purposes. By bringing the judicial system younger blood, it would make the Federal Justice speedier and less costly.

    Read More

  • Why Is Thurgood Marshall Important

    484 Words  | 2 Pages

    Finally, in 1967, President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court. In a mostly conservative Supreme Court, Marshall was an outspoken liberal. During his twenty-four-year tenure, Marshall voted to uphold gender and racial affirmative action policies in every case that involved these policies being contested. In every case in which the Supreme Court voted to not overturn a death sentence, Marshall dissented. Before Marshall’s appointment into the United States Supreme Court, no justice has been so adamant to uphold human rights.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Brennan And Edwin Meese

    194 Words  | 1 Pages

    Prior to the reading of both essays of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese my personal opinion was to interpret the constitution as best fitting for the current situation, whatever that may be. Post reading that opinion that I held changed. After reading these essays I realized that it is more important to stick as closely to what the framers of the constitution meant as possible. As stated in Meese’s essay, “Any true approach to constitutional interpretation must respect the document in all its parts and be faithful to the Constitution in its entirety.

    Read More

  • Civil Liberties Vs. Civil Rights

    1251 Words  | 6 Pages

    Sometimes the Supreme Court will revert the rulings of these lower courts but more than often they’ll stay with the original ruling or they might not even look at the case. My thoughts on civil rights and civil liberties are simple I feel as though they worked for people in the past but they aren’t for today's times. I think they’re slowly dismantling and one day the government is going to have to revise to fit today’s times if not it could mean the collapse of the United States government as we know

    Read More

  • Justice Thurgood Marshall Analysis

    1324 Words  | 6 Pages

    Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

    Read More

More about Analyzing Scalia's West Side Story

Open Document