Comments on: Scalia: Common Law is a School for Misrule

By: asdfasdf

asdfasdf — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:45:14 +0000

Scalia’s book is superbly done; I recommend it highly.

By: Timely Renewed

Timely Renewed — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:22:57 +0000

The only weakness in the textualist argument is its contention that any adjustments required for changed circumstances should be accomplished by changing the text itself through the democratic process of formal amendment rather than by the non-democratic fiat of judicial interpretation. The problem is that the amendment process is moribund, the product of too stringent thresholds to get an amendment through Congress and the complete ineffectiveness of the second amendment method of a state-called constitutional convention. To cure this one weakness we must revive the amendment process. One effective way to do this would be to eliminate the requirement that the states must use the unworkable mechanism of a convention to initiate constitutional amendments. This will permit constitutional change to occur though the orderly democratic process of amendment rather than by the obscure dictates of an unelected elitist judiciary. See http://www.amendmentamendment.com/

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:49:58 +0000

Most of the “rules” described by the book are undisputed, and are routinely taught in law schools and used by courts. The problem of interpretative rules is more an issue right at the top, often with Scalia himself; he has a preferred outcome, and so he bends or disregards these supposedly sacrosanct “rules” to create that outcome. Most of his signature cases involve him disregarding one rule or another for a preferred outcome.