Antonin Scalia Beliefs

James Madison, also known as “The Father on the Constitution”, contributed to quite a few intellectual events in the United States. Madison was an intelligent man with bright ideas that helped this country become the one it is today. With all his appearances to debates, committee meetings, and being elected in conventions, he was able to present us the federal government we have today and some of our basic rights. James Madison’s life and times, before, during, and after presidency is now becoming more well known and interpreted.

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was sworn into the Supreme Court on September 26, 1986 and was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He took the place of Associate Justice William H. Renquist when Renquist was sworn in as Chief Justice. Justice Antonin Scalias' political affiliation is Republican. Justice Antonin started his career as a commercial lawyer for a brief period. He then taught Law at The University of Virginia. After about 4 years of teaching he went into government service starting under President Nixon and then President Ford. During President Carters reign, Justice Antonin left government service to go back to teaching law. He went back into government service under President Reagans administration and was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. Justice Antonin Scalia attended Georgetown University and graduated as the Valedictorian of his class. He then went on to attend and graduate from Harvard Law School. He is married and had nine children.

The decisions made by Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall have had a major influence on today’s Judiciary System. One of his major decisions was in the case Marbury v. Madison, in which he set the precedent of judicial review. Another major decision is in the case McCulloch v. Maryland, in this case Marshall ruled that Congress possesses certain implied powers. Other major decisions made by Marshall were in the cases Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Gibbons v. Ogden, in which Marshall defined national power over interstate commerce, and Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia.

The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would

He was a war hero and everyone loved him, especially in the south and west. He is the only president to pay off national debt. He believed all white men could hold office and political positions should be rotated. He believed that people should vote. He won the popular and electoral votes, but lost the election.

Judge Neil Gorsuch is President Donald Trump's choice to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch graduated from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, clerked for two Supreme Court justices and did a stint at the Department of Justice. He attended Harvard Law with former President of the United States Barack Obama. Since 2006, he has served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Colorado.

Thomas was like Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the fact that he defaulted to being silent. He rarely spoke in oral argument. The rare occasion when he did speak he spoke his extreme views “Thomas was engaged in a lonely, often solo, effort to restore the Constitution in Exile, the world of the Supreme Court precedent before 1937.” (Tobin 117) Because of Thomas’s extreme views, Chief Justice Rehnquist rarely assigned the majority

Judge Thomas's past has created the conservative view points he now holds. Growing up in Georgia, his family did not have his father around since he left at a young age. After a fire left his family homeless he was sent to live with his grandfather. Clarence Thomas learned the life skills he needed and eventually had the dream of becoming a priest and working in the religious community. Dealing with racism at his boarding school he eventually canceled his dream of being a priest and wanted to work in law, even though his grades were exceptional. His rough upbringing caused him to believe only certain laws should get changed, such as the laws of civil rights. Judge Thomas has the passion for the equal rights of all minorities. Upon attending

Scalia says that we are in a "culture war" between the homosexual activists and those who wish to criminalize homosexual behavior. The government says laws like Bowers discriminate against homosexuals and should not be in effect, therefore, according to Scalia, they are taking sides in this "culture war." The court tells Americans that it is wrong to discriminate, but most states uphold laws that "mandate" and uphold such behavior (discharging persons in the military who engage in homosexual activity and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.) Scalia says that "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as schoolmasters for their children's schools, or as boarders in their home." He thinks that the majority of Americans are against homosexuality and the court does not realize it. I agree with Scalia when he points out that there are laws that invite discrimination against homosexuals, but I feel that the government is taking a step in the right direction by overturning Lawrence v. Texas. Our laws may not be consistent yet, but I believe, in time,

When Associate Justice Antonin Scalia perished in Texas from natural causes, the focus was on the storm of controversy that was sparked by the now vacant space on the highest court in the nation, rather than the great tragedy of an honorable and long-serving government official passing away. While this does paint a sorry picture of our nation's focus on who has the power rather than individual's happiness, the altercation caused by the urgent, important, and pressing question of who should appoint the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and who the next Associate Justice should by is in many ways essential to what our country's main policies become in the next fifty years. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the senate majority leader and thus

On March 16, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to take Associate Justice Scalia’s seat. The Chicago native graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and worked as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice. He played the lead role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. Mr. Garland is not as conservative as former Associate Justice Scalia, he is more of a moderate. Also Mr. Scalia was well known for his argumentative style. This was illustrated quite clearly in his frequent and angry dissents of his colleague’s majority opinion. Conversely Mr. Garland works to unite and mold opinions to be unanimous. In his nineteen years on the United States Court of Appeals, he has only penned sixteen dissents. A former law clerk for Mr. Garland stated “From an early point in his tenure in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has demonstrated an uncommon ability to identify common ground among his fellow judges, that he manages to do so without in any way sacrificing his core judicial principles is truly remarkable”

The view of originalism to interpret the Constitution is the correct view. Scalia’s view on interpreting the Constitution through Originalism is correct because it limits the power of the judges so they can not exceed the powers given to them without infringing upon the rights given to the people, it provides a way for changes with the amendment process, and provides a structural foundation for the basis of our country. Originalism is the view that says we should interpret the Constitution based on what it was originally meant to mean. This does not mean we have to go back to older times and have things like they did back then, but it means we should try to stick to our core values that our Founding Fathers based this country on.

I prefer to the approach of living when interpreting the Constitution. I think the majority of law should change and evolve over time as the society advances constantly. The Constitution was established over two hundred years and it was created to deal with the issues at that time. With time passed by, some terms were not suitable for the current issues. The pioneers who drafted the Constitution could not predict the changes on the technology, the economy, the international relationship and the social media. It was not realistic to make the outdated rules to guide the life of people invariably. Changing the law with the time was a positive practice, so that the Constitution could better fit the society.