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
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
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
181 Words | 1 Pages

Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.

Read More
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
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
234 Words | 1 Pages

In her Column “The House That Scalia Built”(2016), Jamie Stiehm argues suggest that supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is dead everything will fall apart. Stiehm backs her statement up with logos, she says “often callous in withering dissents on, for example, gay marriage.” Stiehm hopes to persuade her readers to think nothing will go the republicans way anymore. Stiehm uses a mocking sarcastic approach in her column to show she has no sympathy for his death and just wanted her way of thinking.

Read More
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
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
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
439 Words | 2 Pages

John Marshall was the 4th Chief Justice of the United States of America. His court opinions assisted in laying the basis for the American Constitutional Law. He served as the Chief Justice for the duration of 6 Presidents; John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson. During the American Revolution, Marshall served in the Militia of Virginia.

Read More
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
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
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
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
662 Words | 3 Pages

A natural monopoly is defined as a single firm that offers a product or service (Study.com, 2015). This firm has very high fixed costs as a barrier to entry and derives most the benefits of economies of scale available to the whole industry (Study.com, 2015). Before 1984, long-distance phone service was only supplied by AT&T in the United States (FRASER, 2005). AT&T was holding the position as the only firm to supply long-distance phone services created the label of this service being a natural monopoly. The government has anti-trust laws in place to ensure these firms defined as natural monopolies cannot charge whatever they desire for the single point product or service as the public depends on these services (Study.com, 2015).

Read More

More about Analyzing Scalia's West Side Story

Related Topics

Open Document