The Essential Scalia

[Anonymous No.15385915]

Is this the most anticipated book of 2020?

[Anonymous No.15385925]

>>15385915
>living constitution vs originalist
Better off reading Aristotle vs Plato

[Anonymous No.15385993]

>>15385915

>foreword by (((Kagan)))

Look at how they massacred my boy

[Anonymous No.15387035]

>>15385925
Scalia isn't an originalist

[Anonymous No.15387061]

>>15387035
I'm retard but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[Anonymous No.15387157]

>>15387061
If he was an originalist, he should have been against blacks having rights

[Anonymous No.15387166]

>>15387157
Them not having rights was not set in stone it was a swept under the rug thing. An originalist can be anti slavery

[Anonymous No.15387250]

>>15387166
Under the rug? They were explicit and proud about it

[Anonymous No.15387258]

scalia is a hypocritical and garbage judge. his reading of the second amendment in Heller is the definition of mis-reading the intention and context of the text (which is obviously about militias) and bench activism that he supposedly loathes. he will re-write the law so it fits his basic bitch cuckservative, christard political morality and then dress it up as being true to the text.

[Anonymous No.15387338]

>>15387250
It wasn't constitutionally guaranteed that there should be chattel slavery

[Anonymous No.15387365]

>>15387258

No, it isn't. I forget which one it is, but there is a particular Federalist paper which shows very well how language was construed at the time (and remains properly construed today), treating an unrelated issue. The point being that there was some opening-clause thing or similar construction (as opposed to the substance of the statement) which the opponents were focused on, and either Hamilton/Madison BTFO of the argument: "Of course that isn't what was primarily meant and you damn well know it, you're just being disingenuous." I really should look that one up again for next time. I wanna say it was toward the middle, late forties or so.

[Anonymous No.15387369]

>>15387035
>>15387061
>>15387157
>>15387166
You know all that "legal philosophy" stuff is horseshit, right? Originalism/textualism/states rights/blahblah it's all a smokescreen. Bush v Gore says it all.

[Anonymous No.15387376]

>>15385915
Scalia is yesterday's news. It's time to recognize our new originalist king.

[Anonymous No.15387380]

>>15387157
The 14th Amendment explicitly extended equal rights to blacks.

[Anonymous No.15387404]

>>15385915
Every system of law is basically moronic, a constitution is always like super dumb.

>>15387338
Slaves were property. There isn't a constitutional guarantee for all kinds of private ownership of X, Y or Z. Freeing slaves created modern corporate personhood and now most wealth isn't even owned by real individuals but fictive collective entities lol

[Anonymous No.15387410]

>>15387380
>The 14th Amendment
And most conservatives are against that no?

[Anonymous No.15387413]

>>15387365
playing language games is against the point of originalism. he's a hypocrite

[Anonymous No.15387426]

>>15387410
No mainstream political body is against the 14th Amendment. Scalia was obviously not against the 14th Amendment.

>>15385993
Yeah weird decision, but maybe she was the only one who would do it. Should've been Ginsburg, they were always close friends and as much as I don't like her decisions I would've like to read what she had to say about Scalia.

[Anonymous No.15387438]

>>15387404
>Freeing slaves created modern corporate personhood
Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.15387440]

>>15387413

You're a teenager. All law is "a language game".

[Anonymous No.15387443]

>>15387438

He's a confused teenager who's learning how to spar. He probably has in mind the historical proximity of 13th/15th amendments and Waite's corporate personhood ruling.

[Anonymous No.15387447]

>>15387426
>No mainstream political body is against the 14th Amendment
I'm not an American but that's the whole "anchor baby" thing

>>15387438
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co..

[Anonymous No.15387448]

>>15387413
The entire point of the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison is to interpret language you idiot

[Anonymous No.15387456]

>>15387447
Sure there are aspects of the 14th Amendment that are disputed, but the aspect that's disputed isn't the extension of equal rights to all citizens, it's the definition of a citizen. And applying any of those ideas to Scalia or Scalia's court record makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.15387461]

>>15387447
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co..
>If a nigger is a person, then fuck it: so is Amazon.com!
Really, Waite?

[Anonymous No.15387480]

>>15387456
I never said Scalia, I said conservatives generally don't like it for a specific reason and would like to get rid of it without understanding the full consequences of doing that (foreigner babies won't be citizens but corporations lose their rights)

[Anonymous No.15387509]

>>15387480
Oh I might've gotten mixed up between two different arguments being made. Yeah you're right that some conservatives are against the birthright clause, though I don't think it's a serious political stance. There's no chance of an amendment to the clause and it just fits into a rhetorical argument against illegals that requires no actual action.

[Anonymous No.15387514]

>>15387404
>>15387438
>>15387447
>>15387461

(1868) 14th Amendment:
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(1886) Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.:
>Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

And that's it! From that point on, corporations are officially persons!

[Anonymous No.15387522]

>>15385915
holy fuck the absolute state of this board. I hope you're at least fifty.

[Anonymous No.15387543]

>>15387509
>There's no chance of an amendment to the clause and it just fits into a rhetorical argument against illegals that requires no actual action.
i.e. permanently whining

[Anonymous No.15387558]

>>15387426
Probably because Ginsburg is not on her best faculties.

[Anonymous No.15388332]

>>15387522

[Anonymous No.15389735]

>>15387258
Scalia explains what he meant here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoLMW5AF4Y
Our Constitution has its basis in already-existing laws in England and in the Thirteen Colonies. The Second Amendment makes reference to one of these when it says: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The implication is that such a right, i.e. the individual right to bear arms, existed prior to and independent of the Constitution, and that this right was adopted and given continuity by the Founding Fathers.
Basically, the Second Amendment is not an innovation, but the continuation of a prior state of affairs. In that state of affairs, individuals could keep and bear arms, and therefore the correct interpretation is that individuals can now also keep and bear arms.

[Anonymous No.15389746]

>>15387447
>I'm not an American but that's the whole "anchor baby" thing
That doesn't really contradict the 14th Amendment if you consider that what they want to do is restrict the circumstances under which a person born in the United States can be considered a citizen. The circumstances at the time were very different from those we face now, and getting rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not at all contradict the purpose of the Amendment.

[Anonymous No.15389750]

>>15385915
overrated

[Anonymous No.15390099]

>>15387440
>440▶
>>>15387413
>You're a teenager. All law is "a language game".
continental law isn't, only braindead bonglaw is

[Anonymous No.15390109]

>>15387461
all corporations are legal persons in every sane legal system around the world
dunno why americans are so worked up about it

[Anonymous No.15391176]

>>15389735
>the Hoover Institute
Not watching
>the individual right to bear arms, existed prior to and independent of the Constitution
Except it didn't and people were disarmed by the state occasionally

>>15389746
>The circumstances at the time were very different from those we face now
People were questionably immigrating and giving birth just as much

>and getting rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not at all contradict the purpose of the Amendment.
The "purpose" has been interpreted in a variety of dumb ways which works against your case

>>15390109
That's a modern innovation and the rest of the world were slower. General incorporation of business enterprise in England wasn't even much of a thing until much later.

[Anonymous No.15391460]

>>15391176
>Except it didn't and people were disarmed by the state occasionally
It did. Go read his work.
>People were questionably immigrating and giving birth just as much
Wrong.
>The "purpose" has been interpreted in a variety of dumb ways which works against your case
No.

[Anonymous No.15392408]

>>15387258
the 2nd amendment is not about militias

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Anonymous No.15392440]

>>15392408
is this post some kind of joke, I dont get it

[Anonymous No.15392455]

>>15392440
Not him, but "shall not be infringed" is the key clause here. It existed as a right prior to the drafting of the Constitution.

[Anonymous No.15392465]

>>15392455
But it's clearly about militias, the whole justification of the right of arms is given as their use in a 'well-regulated militia' which is necessary for the security of a free state.

[Anonymous No.15392490]

>>15392455
But any such right was and is infringed generally speaking therefor wtf

[Anonymous No.15392505]

>>15392455
you are ignoring an entire clause to play your tedious language game. originalism is about reading the text on how it can be most naturally read. the law obviously is about militias or the they wouldn't have written the first clause for you to ignore.

[Anonymous No.15392540]

>>15392465
>>15392465
>>15392505

the clauses are completely independent, and this is borne out in every single piece of contextual literature written about the amendment. The necessity of well-regulated militias is being given as a reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". That does not mean that the amendment is guarantees that right only in the case of militias.

If you are sincere in wanting to understand and don't just have a political bent you can read these: fed no. 29 and 46
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

and to add complications: when the amendment was written, it was meant as a guarantee from the federal government to the states, that the federal government would not impose regulations on the states with respect to arms, it perfectly allowed for states to pass laws banning the possession or ownership of firearms for common citizens. That all changes with the 14th amendment... where guarantees like that of the 2nd amendment suddenly became inversions of themselves, where they were promises to the citizens of their rights in spite of what their state says.

[Anonymous No.15392564]

>>15392465
>But it's clearly about militias
Nope, not quite. That's simply part of their justification for not eliminating the right. Furthermore, it does not say that the right to bear arms is limited to those who participate in militias. All it says is that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice also that it says "the people" and not "the state" or "the government" or "the authorities."
>>15392490
Where? In the Thirteen Colonies? Why don't you go look at what Scalia had to say about it to see why he came to that conclusion?
>>15392505
No, lol. Again, refer to Scalia.

[Anonymous No.15392640]

>>15385915
Can we get back to OP’s actual question?

What are your most anticipated releases of the year? It’s looking pretty sparse for me, maybe Alice Knott by Blake Butler?

[Anonymous No.15392731]

>>15392540
>where guarantees like that of the 2nd amendment suddenly became inversions of themselves, where they were promises to the citizens of their rights in spite of what their state says.
And how's that a "bad thing"? Guaranteed rights not conditional on what local bumpkins decide doesn't seem like necessarily a bad innovation.

>>15392564
>Where? In the Thirteen Colonies? Why don't you go look at what Scalia had to say about it to see why he came to that conclusion?
Because it's dumb at face value, I'm not going to cite a ton of cases but you can't really believe just anyone could open carry in merry old England or loyalists were granted the right to be armed by patriots?
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

[Anonymous No.15392778]

>>15392731
I didn't say it was a bad thing, you obviously have some political axe to grind

[Anonymous No.15392796]

Oh look, another /pol/ LARPS as lawyers on /lit/ thread.

[Anonymous No.15392877]

>>15392540
Okay, this is interesting. Where can I read more, besides Scalia himself?

[Anonymous No.15392903]

>>15392877

R E A D
T H E
F E D E R A L I S T

[Anonymous No.15392921]

>>15390099

So the question of what a law's text says and what it means never comes up in other courts around the world. That's interesting, I thought they did. I do know that there's lots of countries with "supreme courts" but if they don't do that, as you've said, then what do they do?

[Anonymous No.15393006]

>>15385915
douglas still the GOAT tbqh

[Anonymous No.15393044]

>>15392877
Like someone else said, the federalist papers are good, though dense. Personally, I wouldn't recommend reading through all of them at once, but occassionaly as you find pleasure in it. The best thing you can do to learn about this, is read the decisions written in landmark or even minor supreme court cases. Find a modern supreme court case of interest and read the affirmative or dissenting opinions, whichever you find more interesting, and follow the citations the decisions will make to prior cases.

[Anonymous No.15393080]

>>15393044
>>15392877

There is also a lot of good literature from anti-federalist authors and thinkers that is worth reading, you can start with the most famous ones ('cato', 'brutus').

But, the most value you can get IMO is trying to learn a lot about one case at a time, and following the trail it sets out for you

[Anonymous No.15393207]

>>15392540
>where guarantees like that of the 2nd amendment suddenly became inversions of themselves, where they were promises to the citizens of their rights in spite of what their state says.

I call bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15393297]

>>15393207
thanks fpr the call ref

this question is precisely what was at issue in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago,

District of Columbia v. Heller (court opinion written by scalia)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/index.pdf

McDonald v. City of Chicago
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/index.pdf

99% of federal power comes from either the due process clause of 14th amendment or interstate commerce clause

[Anonymous No.15393649]

>>15387369
>You know all that "legal philosophy" stuff is horseshit, right?

No, it's not.

Scalia's approach to textual interpretation absolutely changed the way the Supreme Court did business -- from obsessing over the legislative history, to focusing on the meaning of the enacted text.

[Anonymous No.15393716]

Why is originalism only found in burgerland? How come other countries haven't been infected by such an autismal way of reading law?

[Anonymous No.15394053]

>>15393649
Lmao.

[Anonymous No.15394084]

>>15393716
Because Europe is a hellish landscape who don’t know what it means to respect tradition and forge ahead to conquer the globe and shed the shackles off of our former ungrateful empire from which we sprung.

This divine mentality can be found everywhere in our empire, in every single persons life. Meanwhile, it is found almost nowhere in Europe. Nay, the worms under their rocks (which are also more cowardly than a Plymouth Rock) have more courage than any one of their dick-sucking, woman worshipping mouths.

[Anonymous No.15394107]

>>15394084
>. Nay, the worms under their rocks (which are also more cowardly than a Plymouth Rock)
based and burgerpilled

[Anonymous No.15394116]

>>15394084
Europe: 98% white. America: 54% white (down from 91%). Nice respect for tradition you got there.

[Anonymous No.15394161]

>>15394116
Tradition? Were the people who wrote Greek philosophy white? The Holy Bible?

Some tradition you’ve got there, when the bedrock of civilization was fundamentally founded by non-whites.

This is coming from a white person. :3
>>15394107
It is based. I’m thinking this post will have the basedbros label me as a liberal but I don’t care. There is way more to reality than being part of political parties and I am honestly having a good time working in the USA.

I can guarantee Europeans do not.

[Anonymous No.15394174]

>>15394161
>Were the people who wrote Greek philosophy white? The Holy Bible?
They had white skin, so yes.

[Anonymous No.15394183]

>>15394174
Greeks and Jews were not white. :3

I hate even today that people make this mistake in America, when the orthodox Jewish population clearly has a different skin tone

[Anonymous No.15394199]

>>15394084
t. assmad angloid bugman

[Anonymous No.15394740]

>>15385915
yes, of course

[Anonymous No.15395001]

>>15393716
Because people living in Europe are sheep who accept to be dominated by The state and its good will.

[Anonymous No.15395014]

>>15394084
>our empire
You're Jewish?

[Anonymous No.15395318]

>>15392877
>Where can I read more, besides Scalia himself?

The best primer is to read the Scalia's opinion, and the dissent(s) (if memory serves, there is more than one dissent).

The opinion + dissent(s) is extensive; it pretty much covers the waterfront

[Anonymous No.15395329]

>>15393044
>Like someone else said, the federalist papers are good, though dense.

The Federalist Papers are pretty readable though. They were written for journalistic purposes -- i.e., to persuade the general public of the day. Aimed at the hoi poilloi, not (just) the elites or patricians.

[Anonymous No.15395335]

the best book of 2020 is the frog book on the origins of islam

[Anonymous No.15395347]

>>15393716
>Why is originalism only found in burgerland? How come other countries haven't been infected by such an autismal way of reading law?

US law largely descends from English law, with one major difference being that the US has a *written* constitution.

Certainly if the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, were not written, the US citizen would be subject to the same egregious limits on speech as Brits or Leafs.

[Anonymous No.15395355]

>>15394053
The point is not at all controversial, even among those who dislike Scalia. It's simply a fact that Scalia's interpretative approach worked a sea change in Supreme Court jurisprudence as it stood in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

[Anonymous No.15395362]

>>15395347

Actually he wouldn't since rights come from God, not some state. Rather, his rights would simply be improperly violated by a state, which is not the same thing as him not having those rights in the first place (he still does).

[Anonymous No.15395374]

>>15395362
Holy shit, did someone go back to the seventeenth century and bring John Locke back to life in a time machine? Pleased to meet you!

[Anonymous No.15395517]

>>15395374

The same teenage snark. I am describing the current political reality, which is no anachronism.

[Anonymous No.15395655]

>>15395362
I wasn't talking about the existence, vel non, of rights, as such, but rather the practical issue of the state imposing limits on speech.

The state doesn't in the US, because the first amendment is written; it does in britain and canada because they have no such written law.

that said, you made a thought-provoking comment.

[Anonymous No.15396233]

>>15395355
There is no substance behind it. It was a change in rhetoric only.

[Anonymous No.15396429]

>>15385915
originalism and textualism is so funny to me. it seems like the greatest trick scalia every played on this country. "no mentioned in the piece of paper from 2 hundred years ago...sorry!" and everyone eats it up. hysterical.

[Anonymous No.15396904]

>>15395517
My friend, fables created by a lone English philosopher in his bedroom do not constitute reality.

[Anonymous No.15397046]

>>15396429
>2 hundred years ago
Last edited in 1992. Don't blame SCOTUS Justices for not re-writing the most fundamental, bedrock principals of the country. Blame the legislature