Justice Scalia, applying the little known "14 day rule" from the Constitution

[Cali Coug]

http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-680.pdf

Originalism rules. I'm sure he applied it here. He always applies it. Right? To make up a 14 day rule which applies to the 5th Amendment... what am I saying. He didn't just make it up. It's probably in one of the Federalist Papers somewhere.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-680.pdf

Originalism rules. I'm sure he applied it here. He always applies it. Right? To make up a 14 day rule which applies to the 5th Amendment... what am I saying. He didn't just make it up. It's probably in one of the Federalist Papers somewhere.

I didn't read the decision just the case note synopsis. As a libertarian, I don't like the decision.

I saw your swipe at Originalism but did Scalia make a reference to original intent in the decision? Or are you just swiping at Scalia because he is the center of originalism right now?

Liberals are no more libertarian than conservatives any longer, so civil liberties are dead no matter who's in power.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I didn't read the decision just the case note synopsis. As a libertarian, I don't like the decision.

I saw your swipe at Originalism but did Scalia make a reference to original intent in the decision? Or are you just swiping at Scalia because he is the center of originalism right now?

Liberals are no more libertarian than conservatives any longer, so civil liberties are dead no matter who's in power.

No, he didn't reference originalism. In a case interpreting what rights the accused have under the Fifth Amendment, Scalia thought best not to bother with originalism at all. Instead, he comes up with a 14 day rule from thin air.

Whether or not the 14 day rule is workable is debatable, but it isn't debatable that the rule has no foundation in originalism. I don't know how Scalia and conservatives can continue trumpeting originalism when they don't apply it in a significant number of cases which involve fundamental constitutional questions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, he didn't reference originalism. In a case interpreting what rights the accused have under the Fifth Amendment, Scalia thought best not to bother with originalism at all. Instead, he comes up with a 14 day rule from thin air.

Whether or not the 14 day rule is workable is debatable, but it isn't debatable that the rule has no foundation in originalism. I don't know how Scalia and conservatives can continue trumpeting originalism when they don't apply it in a significant number of cases which involve fundamental constitutional questions.

In school, I was a fan of original intent as method of interpreting Constitutional cases. Again, I don't like the case as Edwards makes sense. It's a case of bad facts leading to extremely bad law. Why don't they decide against the guy but refuse to report the case or some sort of nonsense.

Original intent is certain a good constraint upon justices. Whether the current jurisprudence is recognizable any longer is debatable now. The fact that we don't many unanimous decisions any longer seems to imply it's not working up there too well.