Frases de Antonin Scalia
página 3

Antonin Gregory Scalia foi um juiz associado da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos de setembro de 1986 até sua morte em fevereiro de 2016. Era considerado politicamente muito conservador.Foi casado durante mais de cinquenta anos com Maureen McCarthy. O casal teve nove filhos: Ann Forrest, Eugene, John, Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Mathew, Cristopher James e Margareth Jane.

Graduou-se na Universidade de Georgetown e na Universidade de Friburgo . Obteve seu doutorado na Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Harvard.

Foi bolsista da Universidade Harvard de 1960 a 1961; exerceu a advocacia em Cleveland, Ohio, de 1961 a 1967; professor de direito da Universidade de Virgínia de 1967 a 1971; professor de direito da Universidade de Chicago e professor visitante das Universidades de Georgetown e Stanford de 1977 a 1982; presidente da Conferência de Presidentes Seção de 1982 a 1983. Ocupou também cargos no governo federal como advogado-geral da Oficina de Política de Telecomunicações de 1971 a 1972; presidente da Conferência Administrativa dos Estados Unidos de 1972 a 1974; subprocurador-geral para a Direção de Assessoria Legal de 1974 a 1977; juiz do Tribunal de Apelações do Distrito de Columbia de 1982 a 1986.

O presidente Ronald Reagan o nomeou juiz associado da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos e assumiu o cargo em 26 de setembro de 1986.

Scalia morreu aos 79 anos de idade, a 13 de fevereiro de 2016, num rancho no Texas, onde estava com outros membros de um grupo de caça. A causa da morte ainda é incerta. Seus colegas disseram que na sexta-feira à noite ele foi dormir mas não estava se sentindo bem, e, quando eles acordaram, o encontraram já morto, segundo informações da CNN.[carece de fontes?] Wikipedia  

✵ 11. Março 1936 – 13. Fevereiro 2016
Antonin Scalia photo
Antonin Scalia: 100 citações0 Curtidas

Antonin Scalia: Frases em inglês

“I frankly doubt, moreover, whether the fiercely proud men who adopted our Fourth Amendment would have allowed themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of being armed and dangerous, to such indignity.”

Antonin Scalia

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=508&amp;invol=366 (1993) (concurring). <br class="br">1990s

“I'm not going to rip all that up. It's water over the dam. The people have gotten used to it. You know, that's what Stare Decisis is all about. In other words, I am an originalist. I am a textualist. I am not a nut.”

Antonin Scalia

On originalism vs. stare decisis: Manhattan Institute Lecture http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wl1997.htm (17 November 1997). <br class="br">1990s

“The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the 'central holding.' It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version.”

Antonin Scalia

On stare decisis (adhering to judicial precedent): Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;navby=case&amp;vol=505&amp;invol=833&amp;friend=oyez (1992) (dissenting). <br class="br">1990s

“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Antonin Scalia

Dissenting, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015) ; decided June 26, 2015.
2010s

“The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity.”

Antonin Scalia

Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1697, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014).
2010s

“The operation was a success, but the patient died.' What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court's opinion in this case is to law.”

Antonin Scalia

National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (Scalia, concurring).
1990s

“Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges it has confronted are any worse now, or, alas, even much different, from what they ever were.”

Antonin Scalia

Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart graduation commencement speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSOOYx6wYM, . <br class="br">2010s

“As I understand the various opinions today: One Justice holds that two-parent notification is unconstitutional (at least in present circumstances) without judicial bypass, but constitutional with bypass […]; four Justices would hold that two-parent notification is constitutional with or without bypass […]; four Justices would hold that two-parent notification is unconstitutional with or without bypass, though the four apply two different standards […]; six Justices hold that one-parent notification with bypass is constitutional, though for two different sets of reasons […]; and three Justices would hold that one-parent notification with bypass is unconstitutional […]. One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions and will find in our society’s tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved. The random and unpredictable results of our consequently unchanneled individual views make it increasingly evident, Term after Term, that the tools for this job are not to be found in the lawyer’s – and hence not in the judges – workbox. I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.”

Antonin Scalia

On whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion; Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part), 497 U.S. 417 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/497/417.html, No. 88-605 ; decided June 25, 1990 <br class="br">1990s

“People look at rights as if they were muscles — the more you exercise them, the better they get.”

Antonin Scalia

Speech at the University of Chicago Law School http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2003/05/09/justice_scalia_speak.php (6 May 2003). <br class="br">2000s

“I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.”

Antonin Scalia

Forum at American University http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument (2005). <br class="br">2000s

“Evidently, the governing standard is to be what might be called the unfettered wisdom of a majority of this Court, revealed to an obedient people on a case-by-case basis.”

Antonin Scalia

On legislating from the bench: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=487&amp;invol=654 (1988) (dissenting). <br class="br">1980s

“Winning and losing, that's never been my objective. It's my hope that in the fullness of time, the majority of the court will is come to see things as I do.”

Antonin Scalia

NPR interview with Nina Totenberg ; as cited in Scalia: A Court of One https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1451611463, Bruce Allen Murphy, Simon &amp; Schuster (2014), p. 374 <br class="br">2010s