Justice Antonin Scalia, citing "the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution," tells us:
"It certainly cannot be said that a constitution naturally suggests changeability; to the contrary, its whole purpose is to prevent change — to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that 'evolving standards of decency' always 'mark progress,' and that societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot."
I'd be pleased were someone on the judiciary committee to ask this of Mz Miers, as she has not to date responded to my emails wanting to know if she agrees with Justice Scalia or is of the Chuckie Schumer camp regarding the "living document" tomfoolery.
What do you mean 'how would SHE know?', I'm reasonable certain she's heard of the constitution, but my hesitation in accepting her (yeah, like YOU having anything to say about that, yer only a citizen so trust my ass dammit) revolves in part around her proclivity to change allegiance at the drop of a hat. Or shoe, if one were to employ the Senator Di-Fi method of constitutional interpretations
No comments:
Post a Comment