Gridlock helps no one

Justice Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Americans we should "learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to learning to love gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of  minorities." We should love gridlock because it helps what kind of person? Did he actually say minorities?

The definition of minorities is a tricky one when it comes to defining the unemployed in America, because right now there are 14 million unemployed Americans.So the number of unemployed represents a minority of working Americans who aren't being protected by Washington's gridlock. They weren't protected by a government so happy to deregulate business. They weren't protected by a Congress that wants to see the president fail. They aren't protected from courts that rule in favor corporations, like the Supreme Court making it harder for women to sue Walmart. They weren't protected from the 1% of the population that destroyed the economy because politicians need wealthy donors.. Maybe Justice Scalia definition of minority is the rich in the United States. They just can't seem to catch a break when it comes to the government helping them.

Justice Scalia believes in the "original intent" of founding framers when he writes an opinion. But that is really no different than people that believe the Constitution is a "living document," because both sides are deciding laws on their own views of the Constitution.

How would Jefferson want a Constitution interpreted today? No one really knows, and can say without a doubt that he would still view the Constitution the same way he did when it was created. It is hard to argue that he would be proud of how real debates are replaced by PR produced candidates that can only regurgitate talking points, or proud of the elitist that don't know the difference between right and wrong.

Justice Scalia wants to say that he doesn't use his own opinion when it comes to the Constitution, but he should read  his own opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, because it is clear that he is using his own view of free speech when it comes to corporations. Justice Scalia said: "The Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers." Because what found framer said something like that when it came to protecting corporations speech?

A branch of a government, a branch of government that is in charge of coming up with laws that protect citizens of this country, decided to write a law that sought to limit the powers of corporations in elections. The Congress believed that true free speech was being limited by corporations that were able to monopolies the kind of 'free speech" available to the public. 

Corporations should be allowed to speak, but they shouldn't  have a branch of government making new laws to protect their speech--a branch of government that has ex-corporate lawyers deciding in their favor. 

Justice Scalia might think he knows best when it comes to the Constitution, but when the results of his decisions hurt the minorities he claims to be protecting, well, he is greatly mistaken. He and his colleagues have done enough damage in this country by protecting the people the Constitution wasn't meant to protect.