Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon

[Joanne98]

One of the most bizarre developments of the last several months is the growing right-wing calls to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, the provision of the Constitution that empowers voters — as opposed to state legislatures — to elect their senators. On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joined Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) in opposing the century-old amendment:

Scalia called the writing of the Constitution “providential,” and the birth of political science.

“There’s very little that I would change,” he said. “I would change it back to what they wrote, in some respects. The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously.”

That amendment allowed for U.S. Senators to be elected by the people, rather than by individual state legislatures.

“We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the 20th century. So, don’t mess with the Constitution.“

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/

[MBS]

1. isn't it completely inappropriate for Scalia to have a public

opinion on a constitutional issue like this????????
"Bizarre development" is sure the word for this. What do they hope to gain????
Bizarre times, all around.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. I don't really consider it bizarre for Scalia to have an opinion on this

Certainly not one that's screwy. After all, Scalia is an originalist, which is as screwy as a Supreme Court Justice can get and still be confirmed.

Now, if he tried to rule the 17th Amendment unconstitutional, that would be bizarre.

[FBaggins]

6. No, as long as it doesn't impact a ruling.

As long as he recognizes that he must rule on the actual constitution, and not the one he would like to see in the future, he can comment all he likes.

[LynneSin]

26. inappropriate yes, but this is Scalia we're talking about.

Whole different ballpark with this asshole

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. As long at it is not an issue before the court, or likely to be before the court,

Justices often pontificate on a variety of matters.

[beyurslf]

2. I guess I don't understand why they would want to do that.

[stevenleser]

8. I think state legislative races are much easier for Republicans to manipulate with money

You can easily overwhelm your average candidate for state legislature with $100,000 thrown at their opponent. There is little media interest in these races and thus you can completely define yourself and your opponent with more money.

Once the state legislatures are controlled, they control the senate as well and can stop any progressive legislation from being passed at either the state or federal levels. Diabolically smart.

[eppur_se_muova]

22. Exactly. Politics is always more corrupt at the local level. That's the First Law of Politics.

This is why the Repugs are always so eager to "turn control over to the states". Remember those Reagan-era "block grants"?

When corruption occurs at the national level, there are that many more watchdogs ready to bark. At least until Repug owners and publishers bought them out and muzzled them.

[Lil Missy]

24. To assure survival of the most corrupt. n/t

[thereismore]

3. Just aching to get a case that he can butcher the 17th. nt

[Cosmocat]

5. Not that the constitution does not provide for ...

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ...

This is one of those things that drives me to the point of wanting to throttle conservatives ...

THEY and only THEY are the preservers of the constitution, but at the same time, they get to pick and choose what parts of it they like and do not like ...

[elehhhhna]

12. they do the same to the Bible. And facts. They totally ignore annoying facts altogether.

[brooklynite]

7. Time for Senator Lee to put his money where his mouth is...

He should resign immediately, thus placing responsibility for the selection of his replacement in the hands of the Utah Governor and Legislature, where it belongs...

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. No, Mr Scalia, what you can trace the decline of to the passage of that

amendment is the disempowering of corrupt state party machines - which is why the constitution was amended in the first place.

[Donnachaidh]

10. Time for the Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Scalia and Alito

How fucking obvious does it have to be? These are political hacks -- NOT SC judges. Get them OUT.

[struggle4progress]

11. That damn 17th amendment caused the Civil War! And then it ended segregation!

States rights! states rights! Why can't we have slaves? States rights! states rights! Where the hell did the black and white drinking fountains go? States rights! states rights!

Tony is a Republican. The Republicans are corporate shills. The corporate Robber Barons loved chosing US Senators in smoke-filled back rooms filled with the hacks from state legislatures. So Tony dislikes the 17th amendment. But Tony is a Republican. The Republicans public relations game is to reach out to wackos and racists. For decades, the segregationists have been using "states rights" as a code word. So when corporate shill Tony wants to reach out to the Republican racist base to drum up opposition to the 17th amendment, Tony shrieks "States rights! states rights!" He figures the dimbulbs can't know the 17th amendment from jack anyway and will just figure he's opposing integrated drinking fountains

[Warren Stupidity]

13. decline in states rights tracks the decline in lynching

just sayin'

fucking racist asshole

[Hosnon]

14. My understanding is that the 17th was ratified because too many bicameral state legislatures

were unable to appoint Senators because each party controlled one chamber.

[ItNerd4life]

23. Finally, some true facts as opposed to all the emotional outrage.

I was curious why the 17th ammendment came into being, your statement makes perfect sense.

Too bad we can't find a compromise, states are losing way to much power to Washington.

[Hosnon]

25. I was a bit bummed when I learned the history behind it. I always assumed it was due to a burst

of democratic idealism.

Nope - political necessity. Surprise, surprise, haha.

[David Zephyr]

15. So, we should return to 1913? Like that was a great time for Amerian workers?

.

[Monk06]

16. Scalia should be impeached. His political grandstanding is improper for a sitting Justice of the SC

He should shut his festering gob or run for office.

[Cosmocat]

19. if one of the 'liberal" justices ...

were as off the reservation as Scalia or Thomas were they WOULD be OR there would be a MAJOR national debate over it ...

But, yeah, it is the liberal justices that have an agenda and engage in judicial activism ...

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. They're like rhemutoid arthritis. They start attacking their own system if they can't dominate it.

Didn't you notice how they went after the purple heart awards when Kerry was running for president? They tried to diminish his bravery.

And now that they lost the Senate election, they want to diminish the process for that too.

[BlueIris]

18. What an ugly POS. I can't believe this freak is on the SCOTUS. nt

[LiberalFighter]

20. I would support this if...

They would also provide that the President gets to appoint the governors for all 50 states when they become President.

Not really.

[eppur_se_muova]

21. No, Fat Tony, "states' rights" declined at Appomatox Court House.

We have been down that road. It does not lead anywhere we want to go.

[PBS Poll-435]

27. LOL! WTF

Isn't the entire reason that the ammendment process is so tough is to keep politics out of it?

[tomm2thumbs]

29. irony - thinking that letting Americans decide is bad - how anti-American is Scalia?

rhetorical questions require no response, so no need to answer that