Justice Antonin Scalia says his method of interpreting the Constitution makes some of the most hotly disputed issues that come before the Supreme Court among the easiest to resolve.
Scalia calls himself a “textualist” and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn’t think so and neither does he.
“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state,” Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.
Justice Antonin Scalia basically tells us that whatever happens is irrelevant if not backed by the constitution. Meaning that Scalia wants his world to be ruled in the spirit of 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, no matter what happens.
Well, not quite. Because the constitution ratified on the beautiful summer of 1788 and the Bills of Rights have been amended since then.
So Justice Scalia doesn’t quite live in 1788 because slavery has been abolished (13th amendment) and women are accepted in voting booths (19th amendment). Scalia may not like these decadent amendments, but as a textualist, he must live by them.
As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution, although Scalia said the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.
Loud and clear, Scalia says to make him support anything, it must be in the constitution.
So if a grassroots campaign is launched to amend the constitution in order to force Antonin Scalia to immediately deliver a BJ upon request, no matter when are where, such amendment, if ratified, would be enthusiastically supported by Antonin Scalia.