Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia is drawing fire from legal colleagues for his characterization of the U.S. Constitution as a “dead” document — that is, judges should not take it upon themselves to interpret its clauses via modern meanings.
Mr. Scalia, a Ronald Reagan-appointee, has always maintained an originalism view of the Constitution — one that holds fast to the need to interpret the text as the Founding Fathers intended at the time.
“I deny the premise that law has nothing to do with historical inquiry,” he said, during an April 2010 appearance at the University of Virginia School of Law, according to postings on the university’s website. “Historical inquiry has nothing to do with the law only if the original meaning is irrelevant.”
On Tuesday, a day after Mr. Scalia again emphasized that view, legal scholars scoffed.
“I think that it is a bit disingenuous in that he, Scalia, understands that his personal views play an important role in shaping and informing,” yet also says judges’ beliefs shouldn’t be tainted by modern-day events and culture, said Yale Law School professor Peter Schuck, in a story from Politico.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Cheryl Chumley is a continuous news writer for The Washington Times. Previously, she was part of the start-up team for The Washington Times’ digital aggregation product, Times247. She’s also a 2008-2009 Robert Novak journalism fellow with The Phillips Foundation. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By John Solomon
How the government's punishing of the exposure of official wrongdoing can linger for years
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention