Others have summed up the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia better than I can. But I wanted to post something to mark the passing of this man.
I don’t always follow the workings of the Supreme Court as often as I should, because many different things battle for my time and attention. But one thing that always stood about him was how seriously he took the Constitution. Whereas others were inclined to take the Constitution as a roadblock to their own policy wet dreams, Scalia chose instead to look at it as a guide.
“If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, because the juice is not worth the squeeze.”
Judicial activism is one of the major issues of our time. On what basis did the court rule on gay marriage, either in the affirmative or the negative? The Supreme Court is to handle cases of Constitutional law and crisis, and the Constitution makes no mention of the institution of marriage, much less that of specific demographics. Since powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states or the people, it should have been struck back down to the states for resolution.
And if people really wanted a law passed, it could have come via Congress.
Scalia’s own dissenting opinion on the matter is reflective of his understanding of this issue:
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,”
Scalia may have been a child of Italian immigrants, but he was firmly rooted in the Anglo-American tradition of limited government. Were he alive in the Revolutionary period, I am certain the Founders would have found common cause with him.
And I guess that’s why I mourn his passage as I do. He represented what old school Republican government was supposed to look like. He understood the dangers of authoritarianism, and held on to that position despite his appointment to one of the highest offices of the land. In an era of political courts, he was the sole voice of Constitutional reason. His political angle was to go to the Constitution when questions needed answering, instead of going to the opinion polls.
We won’t see his like again for awhile. In an era when even “Conservatives” are forgetting just what they were supposed to conserve, when Socialism and Authoritarianism are all the rage, he was a throwback to the days of the early Republic. Even if we had a Conservative Congress (we don’t, by the way), and a Conservative President, I doubt another could be found to fill his shoes. As it stands, I despair that we’ll find anyone to the Right of Karl Marx.
“God has been very good to us. One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”
He was a Godly man, so I have no doubt that he found his proper reward.
Actually, it’s even worse than you think.
The constitution doesn’t actually give the Supreme Court the right to decide a law (or issue) is constitutional or not. Not specifically, at least. It gives it what is clearly the “court of final appeal” role over lower federal courts (the same Article III instructs Congress to set these up). It clearly denotes that its “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”. But it never specifically states what it can (or cannot do) if the case, law, or tready doesn’t comply with the constitution.
It never says one single word about declaring a law unconstitutional.
Oops.
Or anything about enforcing its declaration even if it could.
Double oops.
So where did we get stuck with this? Marbury-v-Madison in 1803. Essentially, the Supreme Court of the day told one the *key* authors of the constitution (Madison) that he didn’t know what he wrote.
Triple oops.
That aside, Scalia was a TON better than most of the rest. And we are certainly in for some interesting cases this year should the current 3-3-2 split (IIRC it’s currently 3 mostly conservative 3 hardcore libtards and two squishy centrists) continue to hold.
And the election season just got even MORE interesting… as if it wasn’t crazy enough already.
I’ll defer to you on that. Again, I don’t follow court cases as closely as some do. What I did notice, though, was that when Scalia quoted the Constitution, it was with reverence as opposed to disdain. And the cases I *did* follow, he was right on the money every time. One notable case was when he defended the right to produce and sell violent video games.
Love them or hate them, he made the right call on the matter. At the time, this was seen as a very Left-wing ruling for the normally Conservative judge. But, these days, the likes of Kotaku and others are interpreting it as those eeeevil Conservatives letting people beat up on women. Or something…
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/esa-praises-antonin-scalia-for-defense-of-video-games-as-left-wing-games-journalists-trash-him/
In any event, as you mention, the acrimony for this election season is going to get much worse now. With the Judiciary and the Presidency up for grabs, and the “Conservative” majority in Congress more or less caving to the Left… 2016 will decide a lot for the country.
Not to be overly dramatic, but it may decide whether or not the country continues at all. I’m not sure it can survive another period of rabid Progressivism.