Judge and politics

► Full reference: A. Scalia and S. Breyer, “Original Intent and a Living Constitution”, debate organised by the Supreme Court Historical Society, moderated by James Duff, broadcast by C-SPAN, 23 March 2010. - ► Summary: two Justices of the United States Supreme Court compare their conceptions of constitutional interpretation. For Antonin Scalia, an “originalist”, the judge must abide by the meaning the text had for those who adopted it (original meaning, rather than the intent of its drafters): the Constitution is meant to impede change, and it is for the people, not the judges, to decide democratically the questions it does not settle; reliance on purpose and legislative history seems to him subjective and open to manipulation. For Stephen Breyer, a proponent of a “living Constitution”, the judge takes into account text, history, tradition and precedent, but also values and consequences: he does not invent rights, he applies enduring values to new circumstances, the purpose of a provision often being more accessible than its history. - 🎥watch an excerpt of the debate (short version) 🎥watch the full debate

► Full reference: B. Obama, “Professor POTUS on the Senate and the Supreme Court”, conversation with students and faculty at the University of Chicago Law School, 7 April 2016, video posted by The Obama White House on 27 April 2016. - ► Summary: back in April 2016 at the University of Chicago Law School, where he had taught constitutional law, President Barack Obama, while the Republican-led Senate refused to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, explains as a professor the constitutional role of the Senate in the appointment of judges: to give its advice and consent, which presupposes hearing the nominee. He stresses that a partisan paralysis of the procedure would bring political polarisation into the judiciary and ruin public confidence in the courts, a confidence that democracy cannot afford to lose. - 🎥watch the video