Political Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Political Paper - Essay ExampleJustices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, each being highly respected members of the Supreme Court, have their own distinct views in regards to judicial responsibility and the general role of the Supreme Court itself.Two aloneices, while each having the same position of power, bring to the federal official bench distinct backgrounds, as well as educations. Such distinctions that shape the ways in which twain men look at the groovyer role of the Court itself. Both of these gentleman, while possessing respective levels of great judicial power, are in their own right distinctive in approach. Leaving to be considered non only the ways in which they view their position in the legitimate system, but also how they lionise the history of the organization since the time of its fruition and its subsequent involvement in the present state of legal affairs and greater discussion occurring in multiple facets of the country.In an interview conducted at The Federalist Society, Justices Breyer and Scalia are provided with an purlieu to engage in healthy discussion having to do with their individual interpretations of both laws, as well as the intent behind them. An issue which Justice Scalia addresses is the fantasy of a living constitution. One which would c tout ensemble forth with association and form itself to the resulting advancement, in such a way that it would be keeping it from breaking and crumbling all together. Breyer says, while avoiding the classification of living in regards to the constitution, the document sets to the circumstance in order to keep the values the same, (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). After which, Justice Scalia responds with a concurrence that, while he too would believe that the constitution should adapt to new occurrences, he would still not give it the term living as part of its classification. plot of land it is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interfere with democracy, it is its respon sibility to keep in mind the notion of not going too far in its interpretations and approaches. As for his view on democracy, in part, Scalia says that, The legal age rules, Adding that, If you dont believe in that, you dont believe in democracy, (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Justice Scalia then details his view that the plug-in of Rights acts in such a manner, that it imposes limitations on the notion of majority rule, which are in return dictated by those in the court system. Whenever the judges go beyond the meaning understood by the society that voted for those limitations, whenever it goes beyond that original meaning, it is in effect adding to those subjects that are driven off the classless stage, (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Breyers channel of preserving the democratic process is one which many have agreed upon. As is the case with Presidential elections, corresponding Justice Scalia says, the majority does hold a ruling authority and that is in fact part of the democratic process. To have a court that is comprised of entirely different approaches to things, is quite healthy and good, according to Justice Breyer. Its just my burden to prove its better than anything else, (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Scalia places the question forward, for greater discussion and debate, as to whether a lawyer is better qualified to understand the issues at hand, in