Decision > Protection
Scalia opines on the infinite wisdom of not doing his job:
Speaking before a packed auditorium at Chapman University, Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.
"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," he said.
Of course! Now I get it. Now I understand. Thank you Mr. Scalia. Issues of morality, conscience, and ethics should be resolved in the legislature. They're elected, and that makes all the difference – right? It's okay if the government criminalizes behavior that it decrees to be immoral… as long as those making such decisions are elected. Sure, I know what you're going to say: "But there were many German Jews who didn't vote for Hitler." Tough tits for them. As an elected official Adolf had all the moral authority he needed to "settle questions" of morality with "value-laden decisions". Boy. I feel so silly. I always thought that the judiciary was supposed to protect us from "value-laden decisions" by asserting our inalienable right to consult our own conscience on matters of morality. What a dope I've been! I should've questioned the sanity of that kind of thinking a long time ago.
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" he said, to laughter and applause.
Mega Dittos on that laughter and applause! C'mon though. What in the world is an interpretation of a constitutional text… or any text? Am I right!? What does "interpretation" mean? HA HA HA!!! Man, that is such a burn on them.
Asshole.
1 Comments:
Actually Kelly, states are free to legislate morality, it is part of the police power of the state (health saftey welfare and MORALS) so don't get too cute. His point was that moral judgements belong to the people and they shouldn't be taken away from them, for several good reasons. 1) the public will increasingly view the court that interjects in moral issues as a Junior Varisty Legislature, not as in interpreter of legal text 2) moral decisions that aren't adopted or supported by the public do not resolve issues properly. Roe v Wade is a good example, the issue would have been better resolved if the public had voted, instead of having a 30 year battle over a case because of a "emmination of a penumbra". Another example is Brown v Board of Education which required an extensive amount of social change before it became an effective opinion, hence there was a BvBOE2 and many other cases. Another example is the 19th amendment, women's sufferage, current jurisprudence would almost definitely extend the vote to women absent an amendment but there is an element of meaningful public consensus that would have been lost. 3) The idea that the public should rally around these issues would improve civic discourse and understanding, instead of leaving matters to a democracy of 9. If you want an uninformed public, tell them they never have to think about these issues because they will be resolved by better and smarter people 4) Judges have no special training or any unique ability to make moral decisions, they are trained to understand how the law works not how to handle what people should be doing.
C'mon though. What in the world is an interpretation of a constitutional text… or any text? Am I right!? What does "interpretation" mean? HA HA HA!!! Man, that is such a burn on them.
Interpretation is a simple process. He is not denying the existence of a need to interpret the law as it is written (I was there and somebody asked him a question related to that and he responded along these lines. The speech will air on PBS if you want to see what he said exactly), he just doesn't want judges to interpret what they want the law to say instead of what it actually says.
His comments about moderates is a shot at the idea that the constitution is something where you start with an outcome preference first instead of an understanding of the document being examined. If you find that objectionable just remember that the court will likely shift to a conservative majority in a few years time. If they follow the insert policy/moral preference mold, then I doubt you would be happy, but what is sauce for the goose...
Personally I'd rather the power was with the public, then we have the option of doing something about a bad decision. I'd rather the power was with the public and not judges because it was how things were envisioned in the Federalist Papers. I'd prefer it was not with judges because of all branches of government, it is the least responsive to public concerns, with the only check being on the nomination process(impeachment just isn't done even if it is an option.)
It's funny because his speech was about the increasing politization of the court, which is shown through comments such as yours, by non-legal observers. They belie a shift into the political arena that is precisely what he wants the court to avoid. This has been more evident with Scalia and how the public reacted to him in the last 5 years more than anything else. He is an excellent writer, and a great scholar in the law, he is well respected for his abilities inside the field. People may disagree with his textualism, but they have never reacted with the bile that you see today.
anyways, just my 2c. later
Post a Comment
<< Home