FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Antonin Scalia’s Contemptus Mundi

by ELAINE CASSEL

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been heard to say that he thinks he is too smart for the Court, let fly his contempt for his colleagues last week. Speaking of the court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which earlier this year struck down Texas’s homosexual sodomy law, he lambasted the majority for twisting the Constitution to suit its liberal agenda. Liberal? Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens, yes. But Justices Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion), O’Connor, and Breyer?

When it suits him, Scalia calls himself a “strict constructionist” of the U.S. Constitution. For instance, the death penalty can never be cruel and unusual punishment because the death penalty was in use when the Constitution was drafted. Sodomy must be a crime today, because, he said this week, it was a crime at the time of the country’s founding. Of course, the strict constructionist argument runs into trouble when it meets modern technology. In a case decided a couple of years ago, Scalia believed that the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures reached to heat-sensing technology that detected the growth of marijuana plants in a house. How could that be unconstitutional when heat-sensing technology was not on the minds of the founding fathers?

According to news reports, Scalia, speaking to the ultra-conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute, read from the Lawrence opinion in mocking tones. Ironic, inasmuch as the 50-year-old institute has says its mission is to “enhance the rising generation’s knowledge of our nation’s founding principles – limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and Judeo-Christian moral standards.” The organization, like its famed speaker, draws the line at your individual liberty. They get theirs, you don’t get yours if it is contrary to theirs. And there is only one Judeo-Christian moral standard–their own.

Scalia is not alone in his condemnation of his colleagues on the high court. Clarence Thomas has repeatedly talked about the cold and lonely place that is the Court. He shows his contempt for oral arguments by generally refusing to participate.

Why is it that the right, especially the religious right, represented by the likes of Scalia on the court, are so totally unaccepting of another’s point of view? Do they truly believe that they have all of the answers to all legal, legislative, and social issues? This week I gave a legal seminar to attorneys in a part of Virginia where Rev. Pat Robertson seems to have a lock on “truth.” A couple of religious zealots in the seminar derided other attorneys who tried to talk about life and death issues such abortion, end-of-life treatment, stem cell research, and health care for all Americans. We were supposed to be talking about legal conundrums and challenges.

But to some, there was nothing to discuss. “God” decides who lives and dies, and even who is fortunate enough to get health insurance. As one dissenting lawyer said, “You mean your God? Then if we feel that ‘our’ God acts on human events in a different way, we lose?”

While Scalia’s remarks did not have a religious context, they stem from his religious views that carry bigotry and intolerance to the extreme. It is impossible for Scalia to entertain rational debate and to interpret laws outside the spin of his religiopolitical view of the world. He, not his colleagues that carried the day in Lawrence v. Texas, should be mocked and criticized. But they are more fair-minded, tolerant, and judicious in manner and conduct and would not stoop to the depths of Scalia’s ill manners.

As jurists, the majority, and perhaps even dissenters Rehnquist and Thomas (who do not, even in dissent, engage in personal diatribe against their colleagues) looked at the issue of the Texas law as they are supposed to–examining it from historical, social, and legal perspectives. Justice Kennedy’s opinion is well-reasoned, thoughtfully argued, and consistent with the equal protection clause’s mandate that extends the guarantees of the constitution to people that Scalia hates.

Hateful, cruel, intolerant Scalia. Long may he rant and spew his intolerance across the land. The more Americans hear it, the more, I am convinced, they will reject it.

 

More articles by:
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and Henry the First: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail