FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Scalia: the Robert E. Lee of the Culture Wars

by

“Scalia Dead Following 30-year Battle with Social Progress.” So read the headline of the satirical Onionnewspaper in response to the news of the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. The “Twitter-verse” was also aglow with irreverent responses to Scalia’s demise. Filmmaker Drew Emery, for example, tweeted, “I will not at all be surprised when the coroner confirms the cause of death as marriage equality. #Scalia.” If you have progressive friends on Facebook, you probably saw many sentiments similar to these.

Conservatives, of course, reacted to such expressions with righteous indignation. At the Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina on Saturday night, candidate Ben Carson said, “We need to start thinking about some of the divisiveness that is going on in our country. I looked at some of the remarks that were made after finding out that Justice Scalia had died and they were truly nasty remarks.” The conservative Daily Wire website posted a headline that read: “Liberals Disgustingly Tweet Glee at Justice Scalia’s Death.”

Are these gleeful reactions to Justice Scalia’s death morally defensible? Are those reacting this way failing to treat the man with the level of dignity he deserves?

As I thought about these questions, my mind drifted – as it often does – to the ideas of the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who I have spent the last decade or so studying. More specifically, I thought about an editorial frederickdouglassDouglass published in October 1870 called “Death of a Perjured Traitor.” The occasion for the editorial was the death of Robert E. Lee, who was “one of the chief rebel generals” in the Civil War. Many political and cultural elites reacted to Lee’s death, Douglass wrote, with “ostentatious and noisy exhibitions of sympathy and grief.” Some of these elites praised Lee’s “great public virtues” and others said whatever one thought of Lee politically, he ought to be remembered for his “rare private virtues.”

Douglass, as you may have guessed from the title of his piece, was having none of this. When someone of Lee’s public stature dies, what matters is not how he performed in the world as a husband, father, brother, or friend. What matters, Douglass wrote, is what Lee stood for as a public man. Considered in this light, Douglass had “no sympathy to waste” and “not a regret to express over the death of this arch apostate.” Lee’s words and deeds during and after the Civil War revealed that his primary devotion was to undermining the dignity of African Americans and he had therefore earned the disrespect of those who care about “liberty, justice, and humanity.”

Antonin Scalia was the Robert E. Lee of the American culture war. He devoted the words and deeds of his public life to championing a set of ideas that placed him firmly on the conservative side of the many battles of that war. Like Lee, Scalia often found himself on the losing side and, like Lee, he “never ceased to mourn over the lost cause.”

Although Scalia’s views of abortion and affirmative action did much to establish his reputation as a conservative culture warrior, it was his resistance to gay rights that proved to be his defining battle. In the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Colorado law that permitted local jurisdictions to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The majority of the Court found this law to be inconsistent with the Constitution’s promise of “equal protection of the laws,” but Scalia offered a blistering dissent. “Of course,” Scalia wrote, “it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings.” But Coloradans weren’t guilty of hating a class of human beings, he proclaimed, they were simply expressing animus toward “homosexual conduct,” which like “murder,…polygamy, or cruelty to animals” has been the subject of “centuries old criminal laws.”

In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court considered the constitutionality of a prohibition on “homosexual sodomy.” While the majority of the Court found the law to be inconsistent with the protection of liberty provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, Scalia once again found himself in dissent. The Court, he declared, was signing on to the “homosexual agenda” by depriving the people of the states the opportunity to express their “moral opprobrium” of homosexuality, which they believe to be on par with “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity.” If the people of a state want to lock adults up for engaging in consensual sexual conduct, Scalia said, there was nothing in the Constitution stopping them from doing so.

At the conclusion of his Lawrence dissent, Scalia expressed worry that legal prohibitions of same-sex marriage would soon find their way to the Court and the cases of U.S. v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodgesproved him right. In Windsor, which dealt with the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Scalia dismissed the idea that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the protection and recognition of marriage demeaned or humiliated anyone. The majority was simply asserting its legitimate power to “enforce traditional moral and sexual norms” by limiting marriage to one man and one woman. InObergefell, the Court struck down state prohibitions on same-sex marriage and, again, Scalia dissented. The majority decision was little more than a “judicial putsch” – a “naked” assertion of power in defiance of “the freedom of the people to govern themselves.”

In the realm of gay rights, Justice Scalia committed himself – time and again – to staking out positions that denied the equal dignity of all human beings. And it was this record, more so than any other aspect of the voluminous writings and decisions he leaves in his wake, that have inspired some to react to his death with irreverence and even hostility. When these decisions came up during public discussions or interviews, Scalia seemed to take a good deal of pride in his position as a curmudgeonly dissenter who was acting in accordance with his understanding of judicial duty.

Robert E. Lee and Antonin Scalia staked their legacies on conceptions of duty that put them at odds with movements that sought to move this country closer to the recognition of the equal dignity of all human beings. It is upon these views of duty that they, as public men, ought to be judged. They deserve nothing more and nothing less.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.18.51 AM

Nicholas Buccola is Chair and Associate Professor of Political Science at Linfield College. His new book, The Essential Douglass, will be published by Hackett in March.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 29, 2017
Jeffrey Sommers
Donald Trump and Steve Bannon: Real Threats More Serious Than Fake News Trafficked by Media
David Kowalski
Does Washington Want to Start a New War in the Balkans?
Patrick Cockburn
Bloodbath in West Mosul: Civilians Being Shot by Both ISIS and Iraqi Troops
Ron Forthofer
War and Propaganda
Matthew Stevenson
Letter From Phnom Penh
James Bovard
Peanuts Prove Congress is Incorrigible
Thomas Knapp
Presidential Golf Breaks: Good For America
Binoy Kampmark
Disaster as Joy: Cyclone Debbie Strikes
Peter Tatchell
Human Rights are Animal Rights!
George Wuerthner
Livestock Grazing vs. the Sage Grouse
Jesse Jackson
Trump Should Form a Bipartisan Coalition to Get Real Reforms
Thomas Mountain
Rwanda Indicts French Generals for 1994 Genocide
Clancy Sigal
President of Pain
Andrew Stewart
President Gina Raimondo?
Lawrence Wittner
Can Our Social Institutions Catch Up with Advances in Science and Technology?
March 28, 2017
Mike Whitney
Ending Syria’s Nightmare will Take Pressure From Below 
Mark Kernan
Memory Against Forgetting: the Resonance of Bloody Sunday
John McMurtry
Fake News: the Unravelling of US Empire From Within
Ron Jacobs
Mad Dog, Meet Eris, Queen of Strife
Michael J. Sainato
State Dept. Condemns Attacks on Russian Peaceful Protests, Ignores Those in America
Ted Rall
Five Things the Democrats Could Do to Save Their Party (But Probably Won’t)
Linn Washington Jr.
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Hiring Practices: Privilege or Prejudice?
Philippe Marlière
Benoît Hamon, the Socialist Presidential Hopeful, is Good News for the French Left
Norman Pollack
Political Cannibalism: Eating America’s Vitals
Bruce Mastron
Obamacare? Trumpcare? Why Not Cubacare?
David Macaray
Hollywood Screen and TV Writers Call for Strike Vote
Christian Sorensen
We’ve Let Capitalism Kill the Planet
Rodolfo Acuna
What We Don’t Want to Know
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of the Electronics Ban
Andrew Moss
Why ICE Raids Imperil Us All
March 27, 2017
Robert Hunziker
A Record-Setting Climate Going Bonkers
Frank Stricker
Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage
Melvin Goodman
The Disappearance of Bipartisanship on the Intelligence Committees
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS’s Losses in Syria and Iraq Will Make It Difficult to Recruit
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer Bernie Morphs Into Public Option Dean
Gregory Barrett
Can Democracy Save Us?
Dave Lindorff
Budget Goes Military
John Heid
Disappeared on the Border: “Chase and Scatter” — to Death
Mark Weisbrot
The Troubling Financial Activities of an Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate
Robert Fisk
As ISIS’s Caliphate Shrinks, Syrian Anger Grows
Michael J. Sainato
Democratic Party Continues Shunning Popular Sanders Surrogates
Paul Bentley
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
Christopher Ketcham
Buddhism in the Storm
Thomas Barker
Platitudes in the Wake of London’s Terror Attack
Mike Hastie
Insane Truths: a Vietnam Vet on “Apocalypse Now, Redux”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail