WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Friday, June 27, 2014

ORIGINAL INTENT

ORIGINAL INTENT: What's the deal with original intent? Why use it? Does it make any sense?
Justice Scalia is the foremost proponent of interpreting the Constitution by the intent of the framers. Otherwise, all interpretations are just judicially manufactured claptrap. And "claptrap" is pretty much what Scalia called the majority's opinion in the Supreme Court's case about recess appointments. 
Scalia concurred with the decision here,  because he supported the outcome: the striking down of three appointments President Obama made to the NLRB during a short senate recess. 
You need to read Scalia's opinion if you care about how precedent is created. 


What the majority needs to sustain its judgment is anambiguous text and a clear historical practice. What it has is a clear text and an at-best-ambiguous historical practice. 


The real tragedy of today’s decision is not simply theabolition of the Constitution’s limits on the recessappointment power and the substitution of a novel framework invented by this Court. It is the damage done to ourseparation-of-powers jurisprudence more generally. It is not every day that we encounter a proper case or controversy requiring interpretation of the Constitution’s structural provisions 



We should therefore take every opportunity to affirm the primacy ofthe Constitution’s enduring principles over the politics of the moment. Our failure to do so today will resonate well beyond the particular dispute at hand. 



WORLD CUP RUNNETH OVER:
Lose and ....you advance. Almost sounds like an NBA sponsored rule for the Miami Heat.  But it was on a bigger stage yesterday that the USA Soccer team, which has showed the world, and themselves that they can compete with the best, fell a bit short.
Thus the USA Soccer team advanced to the storied round of 16 in the world cup with a 1-0 loss to German. 




NBA DRAFT:
"With the first pick in the NBA draft, as approved by Lebron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers pick....."
The whole league makes us sick. 

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rumpole you dont get ir. They did not aadvance bcc they lost they advanced bc they played second best in thhe group of death and and the two best advance. Stick to riding your bike and jogging. You are no athlete nor were you.

Rumpole said...

I'll respond in more detail as soon as I get out of my spin class.

Anonymous said...

Germany beat the USA. Deutschland uber alles. VIener schnitzel and beer as training tools never fails.

PD blondie said...

As always, Rumpole has the funniest responses.

Anonymous said...

The point of original intent is to keep the U.S. locked is some imaginary conservative utopia. Ah, the good old days, where women were adjuncts to their men folk and blacks were 3/5 of a person. Of course, that theory gets abandoned when necessary to declare corporations have the same rights as individuals (at the time, corporate charters were grants from the legislature, which could give them powers or not as they saw fit).

Wannabe FIFA Rules Czar said...

As a lifelong football (U.S. version), I can tell you that I always watch the World Cup. But soccer would be more exciting if got rid of the stupid ass offsides rule.

The only action in this game is in the deep end of the field. So to stop all the action because some guy is 4 inches in front of the defender is ridiculous. But before some of you soccer snobs lecture me on the genesis of the offsides rule, save your breath. I understand it. Hockey has an offsides rule and it still allows for some scoring.

And penalty kicks to end the game? Stupid, as well. That's like an MLB game ending after nine innings and then having a home run hitting contest. Or a NBA game ending in a tie and then playing a game of HORSE.

Anonymous said...

We are still up 2-1 on Germany.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole: I know you are better than this. Scalia long ago abandoned the notion of "original intent" in favor of "original meaning" in Constitutional interpretation. The two are in fact distinguishable (though that is not to say that there is no overlap). More than 25 years ago Scalia began to lead the way in a movement toward an originalism philosophy that looked to the meaning of the language used, rather than the intent of the drafters. The latter was fraught with contradiction, divined from limited and often inadequate historical bases.