Антонин Грегори Скалиа цитаты
страница 3

Антонин Грегори Скалиа — американский юрист, был членом Верховного Суда Соединённых Штатов Америки.

Занимал должность с 26 сентября 1986 года до самой смерти. Назначен по предложению президента от республиканской партии Р. Рейгана. Католик-традиционалист. Имел репутацию убеждённого консерватора. При нём сменились два председателя и пять Президентов . О Скалиа говорили как об интеллектуальной опоре консервативного крыла Суда. Wikipedia  

✵ 11. Март 1936 – 13. Февраль 2016
Антонин Грегори Скалиа фото
Антонин Грегори Скалиа: 100   цитат 0   Нравится

Антонин Грегори Скалиа: Цитаты на английском языке

“I frankly doubt, moreover, whether the fiercely proud men who adopted our Fourth Amendment would have allowed themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of being armed and dangerous, to such indignity.”

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=508&invol=366 (1993) (concurring).
1990s

“I'm not going to rip all that up. It's water over the dam. The people have gotten used to it. You know, that's what Stare Decisis is all about. In other words, I am an originalist. I am a textualist. I am not a nut.”

On originalism vs. stare decisis: Manhattan Institute Lecture http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wl1997.htm (17 November 1997).
1990s

“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Dissenting, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015) ; decided June 26, 2015.
2010s

“The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity.”

Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1697, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014).
2010s

“The operation was a success, but the patient died.' What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court's opinion in this case is to law.”

National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (Scalia, concurring).
1990s

“As I understand the various opinions today: One Justice holds that two-parent notification is unconstitutional (at least in present circumstances) without judicial bypass, but constitutional with bypass […]; four Justices would hold that two-parent notification is constitutional with or without bypass […]; four Justices would hold that two-parent notification is unconstitutional with or without bypass, though the four apply two different standards […]; six Justices hold that one-parent notification with bypass is constitutional, though for two different sets of reasons […]; and three Justices would hold that one-parent notification with bypass is unconstitutional […]. One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions and will find in our society’s tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved. The random and unpredictable results of our consequently unchanneled individual views make it increasingly evident, Term after Term, that the tools for this job are not to be found in the lawyer’s – and hence not in the judges – workbox. I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.”

On whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion; Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part), 497 U.S. 417 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/497/417.html, No. 88-605 ; decided June 25, 1990
1990s

“People look at rights as if they were muscles — the more you exercise them, the better they get.”

Speech at the University of Chicago Law School http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2003/05/09/justice_scalia_speak.php (6 May 2003).
2000s

“I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.”

Forum at American University http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument (2005).
2000s

“Evidently, the governing standard is to be what might be called the unfettered wisdom of a majority of this Court, revealed to an obedient people on a case-by-case basis.”

On legislating from the bench: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=654 (1988) (dissenting).
1980s

“Winning and losing, that's never been my objective. It's my hope that in the fullness of time, the majority of the court will is come to see things as I do.”

NPR interview with Nina Totenberg ; as cited in Scalia: A Court of One https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1451611463, Bruce Allen Murphy, Simon & Schuster (2014), p. 374
2010s