Antonin Scalia is gone. He shocked everyone, especially conservatives, by having the audacity to die before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Most people thought that Ginsburg, having been racked by disease and pain, would die first. This would give Republicans, who believe that they are certain to triumph in the next presidential election, the opportunity of nominating and perhaps having confirmed a justice of their particular flavor.
The truth is that justices of the Supreme Court all have a tendency to avoid disciplined analysis in favor of their own personal sociological and political views. Justices interpret the Constitution in a way that fits within their own ideological framework. The debate between originalism and flexibility is a new school exercise. Original intent is not something that any justice adheres to strictly, unless they agree with the issue at hand. The same is true with respect to the infamous flexibility of flamboyant liberals. They argue for the ability of the Constitution to bend this way and that, where they have a particular interest in a political issue.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
