Is Justice Scalia Wise Enough in His Supreme Court Rulings Research Paper

Is Justice Scalia Wise Enough in His Supreme Court Rulings - Research Paper display caseThe jurist is a fervent champion of the authority of the executive arm of government he believes that the original political theory of the authors of the American constitution was to establish and nourish a powerful presidency to ensure stability of the nation. In his rulings the judge rejects double standards in the application of the law such as policies aimed to empower minority groups. Talbot (43) avers that Scalia often files separate minority verdicts in which he criticizes the majority decision. This paper explores the philosophies of Justice Scalia as evident in roughly of the Supreme Court rulings he has made on discrimination and criminal procedure. Justice Scalia is widely described as a conservative figure on the bench, implying that he offers the Constitutional commentary in letter and spirit of its key architects of the eighteenth century (Bramwell 370-375). In his rulings, the justice captures the philosophies that inspired the Amendment to the Constitution. Scalia believes various constitutional changes to the US laws should be interpreted with wonder to their essence at the period of amendment. Nevertheless, the justice is at pains to explain his judicial approach relative to the verdict of Brown v. Board of Education of 1954, which declared segregated learning facilities illegal. The ruling also cited the Fourteenth Amendment, which the justice interprets otherwise, as a deciding factor in the case. The enactment of the Amendment contradicts Scalias observations as it allowed corporations some rights under the constitution (Niose 16-21). It is arguable that the architects of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to enhance school segregation. Scalia however, says he would have rejected school segregation in America, an opinion which is compulsive by the need for a real united America. According to Scalia and Ring, the justice enthusiastically rejects the notion of an evolving society guided by an adjusting set of laws (9-11). Scalias ideology implies that it is beyond the mandate of the court to adapt the constitutional interpretation. The justice sounds an alarm that if Americans accepted the fact that constitutionalism should be modified to suit an evolving society, the dangers of evaluating changing standards may be tantamount to believing that the evolution has boiled down into ones personal opinion. Nevertheless, by comparing the Constitution with original statutes, which should be bequeathed future generations in its letter and spirit, the philosophies acceptable by the justice may fail to enable the modern American society to manage new cultural trends, some of which may be good and promote peace and stability in the world (Lakin 47). Additionally, due to the fact that laws are crafted to serve justice, the evolution of the values of the American society may scrap the people into slaves of their forefathers ideologies if Scalias philosophies are anything to go by. Plaintiff has an upper hand Scalias philosophy on criminal procedures is largely in favor of the plaintiff. For instance, he rejected the Courts landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, which offered guidelines on the treatment of criminal suspects. The ruling held that a testimony by a suspect in police force custody who is ignorant of his rights was unconstitutional. Scalias verdict to judicially review Miranda in the Dickerson v. United States case of 2000 hit a snag, when he found himself in the minority,