What Is Justice Anton Scalia Originalism

2663 Words11 Pages

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society.
I. Antonin Scalia: A brief overview of his law career beginning in 1961.
Antonin Scalia was born into a conservative Christian family. Education was impressed upon him at an early age. When he was ready to leave for college, Antonin Scalia attended several prestigious …show more content…

Scalia had a stellar background in the law of administrative agencies. This made him a prime choice for Ronald Regan. His background was one where he was a careful reader and analyzed each and every case in fine detail. Where there are cases with no in cases with no philosophical valence, it soon became clear his colleagues often looked to him for legal guidance. Finally, all his previous work propelled Scalia in the light to be noticed by The President for further appointment. In 1986, President Reagan nominated him as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was with great honor that Antonin Scalia accepted this appointment to serve in his most full capacity. Antonin Scalia had shaped many landmark cases with his …show more content…

This was known as “originalism.” What Antonin Scalia believed in was adherence to the reading and interpretation of the United States Constitution and applying it to the law of the land, exactly as the framers had wrote it in 1790. Justice Antonin Scalia had been reputable and established himself as the principal defender of the constitutional belief of originalism and how the “original meaning” would apply to the theory and concepts of “originalism.” The dominant principle of original-meaning jurisprudence is that there are various provisions of the United States Constitution, and other laws, that are to be construed in agreement with the meaning they held, at the time they were established by the Framers. What Judge Scalia brought to the Courts was the legitimacy of originalism and how it relates to the very nature of law as commanded. This became a new way of thinking with Antonin Scalia joined the courts decades ago. However, before Scalia jointed the courts, the prior viewpoints were on where the Constitutional law was dominated by the idea of “contemporary ratification.” What this meant was, in cases and opinion wans, each generation must interpret the Constitution according to its own needs and the changing society since the Framing of the Constitution. Therefore, when Scalia joined the courts he became an aggressive advocate for a change in the courts viewpoints of “contemporary

Show More
Open Document