|
(unable to post a workable link to story; can access it by searching newspaper's archives----there are other stories equally unsettling if you search archives for Scalia between 1/16/2001 and 5/14/2001)
The Vapid Justice Scalia
The Capital Times :: EDITORIAL :: 8A
Friday, March 16, 2001
Given his reputation as an intellectual heavyweight on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia's appearance Thursday at the UW Law School should have been the most thought-provoking event of the academic season. Instead, Scalia turned in a performance so vapid that, had he been applying for a faculty spot, he would rightly have been sent packing.
People can agree to disagree regarding Scalia's politics. But even legal conservatives who share his dim worldview would have trouble making a case for him as a lecturer.
Sticking to a script thick with laugh lines but devoid of fresh ideas, Scalia declared himself a constitutional "originalist" - meaning that he seeks to draw within legal lines established by the authors of the Bill of Rights.
After declaring himself a defender of the founding vision, however, he closed his talk by allowing that, in light of the obvious differences between circumstances in 1801 and 2001, he must adjust decisions to meet contemporary realities. "I have to figure the trajectory of the First Amendment," he claimed. That's like closing an argument that the death penalty is wrong by saying, "Unless, of course, the guy is really guilty."
Equally absurd were Scalia's references to "the good old days" of judicial "orthodoxy" - which, he says, ended about 60 years ago. Scalia fostered the lie that Supreme Court decisions defending slavery and racial discrimination were grounded in a thoughtful interpretation of the Constitution - as opposed to legal activism. He also argued that the federal judiciary is today on a renegade course because most judges interpret the Constitution's equal protection clause as requiring that women and people of color be afforded equal rights to vote and to participate in American democracy.
In those "good old days," Scalia said, "You could discriminate in the franchise on many grounds without violating the equal protection clause." That was just before the judicial activist who engineered the high court's shutdown of Florida's vote count last fall said, "A basic principle of all democracy is that the majority wins."
Then there was his attempt to tell a student that the constitutional bar on "cruel and unusual punishment" could be interpreted as restricting the use of "thumb screws" but not "Old Sparky."
Funny guy, that Antonin Scalia.
It's too bad that the biggest joke of the day was the argument he attempted to make for his approach to the law.
NOTE ESPECIALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'...Scalia's references to "the good old days" of judicial "orthodoxy" - which, he says, ended about 60 years ago. Scalia fostered the lie that Supreme Court decisions defending slavery and racial discrimination were grounded in a thoughtful interpretation of the Constitution - as opposed to legal activism. He also argued that the federal judiciary is today on a renegade course because most judges interpret the Constitution's equal protection clause as requiring that women and people of color be afforded equal rights to vote and to participate in American democracy.
In those "good old days," Scalia said, "You could discriminate in the franchise on many grounds without violating the equal protection clause."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
