Scalia Antonin versus Breyer Stephen

We are not intended to be scared of saying the truth. The bill of rights, the most critical aspect of the constitution depicted in our map, is a validly anti-democratic text that tells people they cannot do what they wish.
It is unrealistic to ask us to always express common viewpoints. In certain cases, the very object of the bill of rights is to shield you from the majority.
In the 1920s, they wondered, "Did we the people ever conclude that you couldn't discriminate in the franchise on the grounds of sex?"
"Is that what the people decided when they ratified the 14th amendment that includes the equal protection clause? The answer to that question is very obviously no.
Where we disagree is on the batteriesmatters that existed a long time ago. The death penalty, abortion, the rights to suicide, which came within a hairsbreadth of recognizing, we said we are not yet prepared to recognize it, but one day in the fullness of time, we may.
Deciding on the purpose is a very manipulable purpose. How general is the purpose? Do good and avoid evil? Do you realize the amount of discretion that leaves a judge?
What is the purpose of the confrontational clause? I assume it is to produce a fair trial. So do I say the constitution requires whatever I think will produce a fair trial? Of course not.
You cannot run the constitution that way.
So do not think that this is a one-way street, that we just get freer and freer, there are more and more rights and freedoms.
You can gain rights and you can lose rights. It depends on which rights justice Breyer lives and which ones he does not like.
If you authorize somebody to take a pound of flesh, surely implicitly authorized them to take whatever blood goes along with it.
I do not care a fig for the framers. I care for the people who ratified the constitution.
I do not believe in our original intent. I believe in the original meaning.
The bill of rights is, in essence, anti-democratic. In another sense, it is quite democratic. It was adopted democratically
There is no doubt that no American ever wrote it for that when they voted to ratify the eighth amendment. That was the penalty for all colonies.
He is happier when he is only looking at the first war, and I am happier when I am looking at the last two. When I say happier, I do not mean psychologically happy; we consider the PURPOSE and CONSEQUENCES.
You do not have to change the constitution in order for the society to change. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box.
Change will occur as fast as you like. The purpose of the constitution is to impede change.
My constitution provides for a very flexible system of government. You like the death penalty, persuade your fellow citizens that it is a good idea. You don’t like it, persuade them to the contrary, and abolish it.
And therefore the court must look at those words “A state shall not deny any person equal protection of the loss,” through the lens of what actually happened, not through the lens of what someone thought might happen on the ground.
When my wife says there is no butter, she does not mean there is no butter at the corner store. She means there is no butter in the fridge. This because of the context.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer are legal opposites; they have always interpreted the constitution differently. From the conversation, Scalia is a conservative; he believes that the words of framers should always be considered by judges in considering the intent of the constitution, and strictly adhere to it. On the other hand, Breyer is a liberal; he believes in a living constitution; the idea that the framers’ perceptions can be molded in regards to the situation and context of deeds. A major difference in their perception is the definition of the three concepts: life, liberty, and property. Additionally, they disagree in the understanding of freedom of speech. Breyer argues that the freedom of speech and right to privacy continuously shifts due to the changing communication modes. As such, Breyer believes that only the underlying values of the constitution should be considered in determining the rights and freedom.

Scalia disagrees with Breyer, insinuating that the constitution framers had in mind the possible future changes. He suggests, through his words, that he does not have any problem in having the “living constitution,” but originalism should not mean that the contemporary developments were not covered by the First Amendment. Rather, originalism, according to the Justice, the context of occurrences in the society at the time subsists. He further claims that framers understood the rights outlined in the constitution, and could easily be carried forward today. By liberals including new ideas, it would mean drafting new rights in the historical document. "