In the author's opinion, narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court is the ultimate cornerstone of maintaining the stability of the country. Visual information in China
Today went to the spring garden party organized by the Chinese Association of long island, on the way back, I open the app in front of a traffic light, the surging news friend sent me a message: "Justice Scalia died, you're going to write an article? "My first reaction was:" this is not a joke. "
The green light is lit, so I had to put down the phone and drove on. As if suddenly all the lights have gone all the way, there is no opportunity to view the news. But the message is encroaching, today is not April Fool's day, the surging big joke on friends and I almost immediately thought of Fisher, sued the University of Texas case (Fisher v. University of Texas), and there are still no sentencing case. I clearly know that according to the rules of the Supreme Court, Scalia's death, any or no sentence case his vote will be void.
Fisher, I spent so much effort on this case, with Scalia's death results in the case of accidents, I feel suddenly falling into the bottom, almost wanted to cry, but no tears from eyes, severely upset, with great hopes but the sense of loss overwhelmed now seems endless.
I stopped the car on the roadside, in the CNN Web page open on your phone, and Scalia's death on the news on the CNN home page. Press said he went hunting in Texas, went back to the hotel at night complained of not feeling well, when friends found that he came down to breakfast the next day also did not participate in the hunt later discovered that he had died in his sleep.
I read the news while staring blankly back to friends asking, one of my high school classmates reminded me that I don't need all of the Supreme Court judges voted, that reminds me. Special is the Fisher case before justice Kagan to the Supreme Court involved in the case and must withdraw, and if Kennedy and conservative four votes to form a majority, that Justice Scalia's death only results from 5:3 to 4:3, the Supreme Court needs at least six judges voted, now has seven justices. In theory, there is still hope that the Fisher case, but on the other hand, I really can't predict the death of such a great master of law for his eight colleagues are shocked, they will rely on the majority of four votes to decide cases so important?
After all, this is Justice Antonin Scalia, no matter what political position with you, you cannot afford not to acknowledge his far-reaching influence on law none of the current justices reach, even if you include the Posner.
The first time I heard that Justice Scalia is my second year of 2000, this year Bush versus Al Gore for the first time I heard about the United States Supreme Court members. And like many Chinese people at that time to the United States, I also went through as I grew older and politically more conservative course. Why zhakebogexiu two months of maternity leave
Scalia the law's biggest impact his life advocating the judicial doctrine of original intent, of course, I remember when I first heard about this theory I and many people have doubts: if judges are required in accordance with the Constitution, initially through public understanding of intention to interpret the Constitution, how it can be solved when there is no social phenomenon.
Scalia was in many interviews to confront the question, he said, of course, Madison drafted the Constitution without GPS satellite positioning system, so when you're faced with the Government without the leave of the Court put the satellite positioning system in the suspect's car on the case, you must determine how the law and logic can be extended to new social phenomena.
Perhaps this idea will not let you submit (I'd listened to are skeptical), but his most convincing second half. He said: "I never claimed the judicial doctrine of original intent is a perfect law, but compared to the other legal theories, it is so much better. "
What is this mean? The crux of the problem lies: the Constitution is the people and the Government, and their own contracts. If you want to change the contract, you must pass a constitutional amendment that democratic process. If the original intent of the Constitution which allows judges to interpret the Constitution freely, it is not only dangerous, but is in fact anti-democratic.
Whenever has friends and I pointed out that Scalia by holding intent doctrine by obtained judgment results of absurd of at Shi, I of answered always if you today willing to deviated from Constitution eighth amendment initially of intent (is apparently founding Shi death penalty how also cannot is "cruel and extraordinary of punishment") words, that tomorrow who can stop deviated from Constitution first amendment in the speech free of intent, acquired who can stop deviated from Constitution fourth amendment in the guarantee "not by unreasonable search" of intent, big acquired who can stop deviated from Constitution sixth amendment in the guarantee "And the plaintiff wherein the" intention?
If your argument is that depart from the eighth amendment of the Constitution was "well deviation", who will decide that in the case in under what circumstances a judge could depart from intention? Constitution require larger threshold, is because of the need to maintain the stability and predictability of the law, judges are free to interpret the law, the legal stability and predictability can easily be damaged.
Come home, turn on the TV, and CNN is replaying 2012 interview with Antonin Scalia. When the discussion when the first amendment to the Constitution, Scalia reminded interviewers, the text and meaning of the first amendment to the Constitution is very clear:"Congressshallmakenolaw...,orabridgingthefreedomofspeech". "The freedom of speech", this is the definite article The, says it is especially not referring to freedom of speech in the judicial doctrine of original intent, when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution freedom of speech is very clear, is "The freedom of an English man" the freedom enjoyed by British people since ancient times. United States founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution, history of the law is very clear from their ancestors.
Scalia, this often Liberals criticized the conservative justices, in fact, often loyal to the original intent of the law and made to look very "liberal" decisions, in particular in the field of criminal proceedings insisted. He was in Crawford v Washington (Crawford v. Washington) in the case of setting up a new confrontation clause case law strongly protects the plaintiff's constitutional powers, his firm protection for private property, there may be threatened with his death.
This is the judicial doctrine of original intent, and in the wider sense of Justice and political conservatism attracts me most places. I distrust of radical social change, Scalia led me to the source of conservatism: Edmund (Edmund Burke), Burke of abstract "reason" criticism I am a great admirer of praise highly, he, in the France of the reflections on the revolution of the article makes me the extreme reactionary movement against social tradition since more and more skeptical.
In a sense, Justice Scalia is a contract in this country and I, I am United States worried political climate changes over the past decade, in my opinion, narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court is the ultimate cornerstone of maintaining the stability of the country. Within hours of the death of Justice Scalia, President Obama announced that he would soon nominate judges to fill the vacancies, and the Senate Republican majority assumed an uncompromising posture. Republican presidential primary candidates vying to represent his "true conservative." A few days ago, saying if elected will have to repatriate billionaire telangpuhe said more than 10 million illegal immigrants if elected to "University free, care free, to tax Wall Street offenders" Socialist Sanders won the Republican and the Democratic Party's New Hampshire primary.
Has a lot of friends during the election campaign such as democracy, no big deal. The answer's no, United States there has never been such a large proportion of the poorest, and Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney) said in the 2012 elections "47% who had lived on Government aid for" not count on it. In the presence of polarization so bad almost all the voters rage against the status quo, which is why a strongman role of Trump and a Socialist Sanders became the latest stars of both parties.
Scalia's death, in a way that relieved my and the country's last contract, no longer wander away from the United States say goodbye to dreams.
I dedicate this Memorial Scalia justice.
(Blog: http://blog.Sina.com.CN/u/2488313871)
No comments:
Post a Comment