"Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people ... This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I'm asked when I've given a talk like this a question from the back of the room--'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?'--as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people-- 'When did you first start eating human flesh?'"--Justice Antonin Scalia
"Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land...postpones even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use". Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a 'Public Purpose' Clause (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational". This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use". I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use", any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Conner powerfully argues in dissent. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."--Justice Clarence Thomas' Dissent in 'Kelo'
"To engraft on any instrument a substantive exception not found in it, must be admitted to be a matter attended with great difficulty. And the difficulty increases with the importance of the instrument, and the magnitude and complexity of the interests involved in its construction. To allow this to be done with the Constitution, upon reasons purely political, renders its judicial interpretation impossible because judicial tribunals, as such, cannot decide upon political considerations. Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican Government, with limited and defined powers, we have a Government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court.".--Justice Benjamin Curtis' Dissent in 'Dred Scot'.
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. [T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. What really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”--Justice Scalia's Dissent in 'Obergefell'
The President: "Justice Barrett has made clear she will issue rulings based solely upon a faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written, not legislate from the bench.
The equal, impartial, and constitutional rule of law that we enjoy every day in America is one of the crowning achievements in the history of human civilization. It is the triumph of reason, experience, and the values which are eternal and everlasting. Our devotion to this inheritance is what has made America the most just, exceptional, and glorious nation ever to exist.
I want every American child watching to understand that this is a very special and important ceremony. We are fulfilling the duty that passes to each new generation to sustain the national traditions and virtues that make possible everything we have achieved before that we will do tomorrow.
Because of our Constitution and our culture of freedom, you live in a land where anything is possible and where any dream can come true. No matter who you are, no matter your background, in America, everyone is entitled to equal protection under our laws, and your sacred rights can never, ever be taken away.
The march of liberty that began with the American Revolution continues onward this evening. Tonight at the White House, we carry forward the cause of freedom, equality, and justice for which so many generations of Americans have given so much. We honor the cause for which men died to win the Civil War, and for which they jumped out of airplanes and shed their blood on distant battlefields. We honor the immortal principles that inspired millions in the struggle for Civil Rights, and we take special pride in the nation that inspires billions of people all over the world.
We must never take this radiant inheritance for granted. We must never lose confidence in our history, our heritage, or in our heroes. To reach for the stars, we must stand upon the strong and sturdy foundation built by those incredible Americans who came before.
Justice Barrett, as you take your oath tonight, the legacy of our ancestors falls to you. The American people put their trust in you and their faith in you as you take up the task of defending our laws, our Constitution, and this country that we all love. We ask God to give you wisdom and courage. I know you will make us all very, very proud.
As long as we are loyal to our founding and to our fellow citizens, America’s future will be bright, America’s destiny will be great, and America’s people will forever and always be free. I now ask Justice Thomas to administer the Oath. Thank you very much.".......
 |
"The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independent of both the political branches and my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it."--Justice Amy Coney-Barrett |
No comments:
Post a Comment