Antonin Scalia Dead at 79
As I like to think of myself as a kind and civil person, I generally do not celebrate the loss of anyone’s life. Yet it’s hard to mourn the passing of those who were bitter enemies of fairness, justice and social progress on Earth, e.g., U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, found dead at his West Texas ranch earlier today.
Here’s Scalia upholding his defense of Citizen’s United, in which he states that he doesn’t believe that big money plays too great a role in politics, and here are some other highlights from “Antonin Scalia – On the Issues.”
• Abortion: Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided & should be overturned. (Jun 1992)
• Gay Rights: Coloradans entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct. (Aug 2005), Opposed banning homosexual sodomy laws. (Aug 2004), State laws should not protect gay rights. (May 1996)
• Crime: Government is not responsible for abuses in private prisons. (Jul 2009), Shorten time between sentencing and executions. (Apr 2000), OK to lengthen prison sentences retroactively. (Mar 2000)
• Drugs: Sentences should stand despite crack-vs.-powder rule change. (Jun 2011)
• Religion: Taxpayer funding OK for parochial school materials. (Jun 2000)
• Families and Children: 1st Amendment protects videogame violence as “speech”. (Jun 2011), Rape victims cannot sue their alleged attackers. (May 2000)
• Environment: EPA’s Clean Air Act can regulate pollutants but not CO2. (Apr 2007), Can’t sue polluters after they stop polluting. (Jan 2000)
This is terrible news for all those who view Obama as the Antichrist, insofar as the U.S. President gets to nominate Scalia’s successor, who will likely be a person of compassion and decency. Needless to say, I don’t shed a tear for them either.
Some of his decisions seem inconsistent and many defy reason. It may be that he will be replaced by a more suitable justice. However, when the president nominates a justice, the justice has to be approved by the senate. Considering recent performance by the senate that could be a serious problem.
Actually, although he, like everyone, is imperfect, I see Obama as the pro-Christ. The most important law in Christianity was stated by Jesus in response to his being asked which is the most important law; it is widely referred to as the Summary of the Law. It’s in two parts; the first part is basically to love God and the second part is to love thy neighbor (broadly defined) as thyself. Surely all civilized people, regardless of religion, would accept the second part, yet many people who consider themselves to be very pious Christians seem to reject that. They also reject to Biblical admonition to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Many also seem to think that the Command “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” does not apply to them, i.e., they think that they have a special dispensation.
Many years ago I got to the point of being much more concerned about how people treat each other than with what they believe. Too many “Christians” seem to be exceedingly mean-spirited. There are many atheists and agnostics who are kind and loving and there are many pious “Christians” who are exactly the opposite.
Yes, the whole religion thing is a very interesting phenomenon, though it’s one that I try to skirt; in 6000+ blog posts I’ve mentioned it only a handful of times, and always indirectly. I’ve made enough enemies without cultivating new ones. 🙂
Probably that’s wise. However, there are some things upon which all religions agree and upon which all civilized people agree. Beyond that it can be a mistake to mention religion.
Craig,
I think you do Justice Antonin Scalia a great disservice. He was certainly not a “bitter enemy of fairness or justice ! ”
It’s true he would describe himself as a man of conservative values and as a Judge he held sincerely to the concept that the US Supreme Court is not a legislative body, and can’t function as an instrument to create law.
His overwhelming belief was it’s the role of government to initiate and pass laws, progressive or otherwise, and the sole role of the Constitutional Courts to decide whether or not laws contravene the Constitution.
Associate Justice Scalia warned that allowing courts to act as defacto legislators, weakened the democratic process,encouraged craven politicians,and discouraged the electorate from taking part in the political process.
Justice Scalia was neither venal nor corrupt. He saw his role very clearly, and served with great diligence and integrity.
Your criticisms are unfair. You expect a Judge to uphold misused, poorly written, or unconstitutional laws, simply because you believe that the the court should take the place of legislative process when the legislature is unwilling to pass, or amend, what you believe is “progressive”.
Most of the ” progressive” issues Justice Scalia ruled against, I support. However, as a lawyer I appreciate Justice Scalia’s position. Although I’m glad of the practical benefit afforded by Roe v Wade, I understand Justice Scalia’s opinion that abortion should have been legalized only by strong and clear legislation.
I saw this one coming. 🙂
In my estimation, Scalia was known for one thing only: using arcane methods and specious logic to block social progress. His attack on Obamacare was the classic example.
From my post on the subject:
Again, not to be cavalier, but I think the intention of the term (“sustainable”), as it’s commonly used by thoughtful people who honestly care about the subject, is completely clear.
This provides an opportunity for a segue: There happens to be an interesting coincidence happening in the U.S. right this moment surrounding this concept of the “intention of the term.” Readers outside the country may be unaware that our Supreme Court has agreed to re-consider the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), based on the fact that the actual words in the law may result in an unacceptable burden on the states vs. the federal government–even though it is 100% clear that this was a simple error, i.e., the lawmakers’ mistaken choice of words; it was certainly not part of the intention of the law.
Now you might be one of the people (like me) everywhere who say, “Well, if you’re so sure that the authors of the law intended X, why don’t you simply ask them? Wouldn’t that put an end to any doubt that might exist in anyone’s mind? This was just two years ago in 2012; just ask them to clarify what they meant. It’s not like you’re trying to interview the people who wrote the Bible—or even the Constitution itself. Just walk across the street (First Street Northeast in Washington, DC) and ask them.
Most people interpret the Constitution this way (above), though not all. For example, Antonin Scalia (pictured above), who I believe played a pivotal role in the decision to re-hear the case, is what is called a “textualist.” This means that to him, the intention of the law doesn’t matter in the slightest; the only thing that counts is the precise words that appear in the law themselves.
This strikes me as extremely backward; it sounds like some relic of jurisprudence from before Hammurabi’s time. Yes, it’s given the academically appealing name “textualism,” but it seems more like “obstructionism” or “regressivism,” or some other word that means “a doctrine that facilitates attempts to block civilization’s efforts to make itself more civilized.”
Craig,
Courts, especially Constitutional Courts, have a number of factors to consider when deciding the implementation of a law.
“What was in the mind of the lawmakers” (intent)is one factor, but so is the exact Text of the law.
Judges must treat all laws in the same way however old. If the Text of the law contains errors, in conflict, or inoperable, then the appropriate procedure allows for elected representatives to correct the mistake by amendments.
No matter how convenient, Courts can’t be used as a means of guessing what the legislature meant, and change or modify laws. It would become chaotic and partisan to allow Courts to become a sort of second legislative debating chambers.
Because Judge Scalia insisted on a high standard of judicial independence and required an equally high standard of legislation, speaks to his credit. If this meant legislation you support was sent back by a non-partisan Judiciary because it was substandard in construction, then it’s a reflection on the conduct of the legislators, not the Judges..
You may cheer ” Activist ” Judges when they improperly bend the law to suit causes you support, but what happens when the same Judges bend the law against the cause you support ?
I believe it’s safer to appoint Judges like Justice Scalia. He may have been a strict, but he forced the duty, and responsibility, for legislation back to the place it properly belongs; The elected legislators.
From what I observed, Justice Scalia had the precise failing you mentioned: interpreting the Constitution in a manner so as to favor laws that he happened to like, especially those that suppressed the rights of women, gays, and people of color, while favoring large corporations that use their vast wealth to create further advantage for themselves.
He consistently protected polluters’ rights over those who favor environmental regulation; perhaps that’s what I found most loathsome.
Craig,
You are missing the point. Justice Scalia may not have ruled in favour of causes you like, but why is that ” Loathsome” ?
Justice Scalia can’t make law. If he (and his fellow Judges) ruled against certain acts then the Legislature is sovereign and has the power to nullify the courts ruling.
The Legislature can simply amend,tighten or re-frame the Act. The court can’t frustrate the will of the Legislature and due process.
You are complaining because a referee doesn’t favour the side you support. You want the Judges in a Constitutional Court to play partisan politics and achieve what the legislature is unable, or unwilling to accomplish.
You write: You are complaining because a referee doesn’t favour the side you support.
Actually, I’m complaining that a referee consistently favors one team over another. Any fair-minded person would feel the same way–regardless of which team the referee favors and his reasoning for behaving like that.
Craig,
I disagree. Justice Scalia was opposed to “activist” rulings by courts. As a Judge he simply stuck to the principle that Judges shouldn’t try to create law through “creative interpretation”.
Ultimately, he saw himself as the champion of the US democratic process. His ruling were all designed to force US legislators to take control, and responsibility for clear, precise and courageous legislation.
Your allegation that he was on one side or the other, only displays your misunderstanding of how Justice Scalia saw the role of a Judge.
Unfortunately, because of the public’s low esteem of Politicians, and media depictions of “Heroic Judges”, the role of the US Supreme Court has become somewhat romanticized and misunderstood.
Appointing a Judge who will be more compliant with administrations find that the legislative process creates difficulties with enacting their agenda, would be a disaster for US democracy.
If governments and administrations don’t like the law, or even the constitution, the have the power, and responsibility to change those laws (or even the constitution) through the political process.
Courts shouldn’t be used as a method of circumventing the right of the electorate.
Naturally, a Judge like Justice Scalia will provide an impediment for any administration with a reform agenda, that is narrowly supported and whose legislation is cobbled together with compromises and vague terminology.
No matter how well meaning the legislation, the US Supreme Court has a duty to reject such flawed legislation. The court can’t patch-up and correct legislation. That’s the task (and duty) of legislators.
Any objective reveiw of Justice Scalia’s judicial record, displays a Judicial official dedicated to requiring legislatures to pass legislation of the highest quality and clarity.
His critics are not his fellow lawyers and Judges, but those who misunderstand the role of Constitutional Courts.