Tags
Antonin Scalia, Christianity, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan, United States, US Supreme Court
Sometimes those of us who follow American politics should probably explain what all the fuss and feathers is about. On my blog, I’ve been off on my normal mid-February history and lost cause binge. That’s where I stop and remember George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. This year the death of the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, came right in the middle and contributed its share to the melancholy that many of us see. And in talking with Jess this week, I found that few (including her) had much idea at all of who Scalia was. And that’s important to America, and our position in the world.
As some may not know, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, subject only to impeachment (for high crimes or misdemeanors, which was the lesson we took from Lord Hastings impeachment, as Great Britain took the lesson that impeachment was too expensive and time-consuming, and outlawed it completely.) In fact, a justice’s pay and benefits can not even be cut, which occasionally causes trouble, when inflation raises its head. 🙂
Antonin Scalia was, without a doubt, one of the best American Jurists of at least the last 75 years, likely one of the best four or five ever. He was what we call an ‘originalist’, one who believes that the Constitution means exactly what the words meant when the founders wrote them down, no more, and no less. He was also a devout Roman Catholic, as befits the son of Italian immigrants. One of the best men appointed anywhere by Ronald Reagan. Reagan tried to get another similar man onto the court as well: Robert Bork, whose name has become a verb that the OED defines as follows: “To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.” They should have added unfairly and untruthfully, because to be accurate, none of the attacks on Judge Bork were either.
The way the American system works is rather remarkable. The justices are appointed for life, by the president (one of the reasons for the awe of Washington many of us have, appointing the entire Supreme Court is quite a responsibility in itself). He does this with the advice and consent of the Senate, which means they must confirm the appointee. And so it is rather an awesome power, to appoint a man (or woman) who may sit on the court for 40-50 years after your presidency. I think it is one of the ways the founders sought to avoid novelty. I note that the Senate itself was another, until the early Progressives amended the Constitution to provide direct election of senators. Never think only the British are afraid of mobocracy, as John Adams termed it. Until FDR was president it worked quite well. When he talked about packing the court, the stalwart old judiciary became (in my mind, anyway) much too compliant to the other two branches.
And that was part of Scalia’ charm, his basis in principle, his humor, and his intelligence. Not to mention his way of expressing it, and no I can’t convince myself not to pass along a few, courtesy of The Daily Signal.
- “What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?”
- “God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed. … If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.”
- “If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”
- “A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.”
- “If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.”
- “It is one of the unhappy incidents of the federal system that a self-righteous Supreme Court, acting on its members’ personal view of what would make a ‘more perfect Union’ (a criterion only slightly more restrictive than a ‘more perfect world’) can impose its own favored social and economic dispositions nationwide.”
- “Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.”
As valid as those are, and they are very valid indeed, for a stable civil society, I see nothing there that contradicts my belief as a Christian, either. Although applying them to what we Lutherans call, The Second Kingdom can have surprising outcomes when applying originalism to a document like the US Constitution. And so sometimes social conservatives were discomfited by his views.
But there is one other current running here. In case you missed it, we are in the process of electing a president this year as well. It is already a fairly heated campaign, and this is likely to make it worse, not least because in many ways, it is the most important issue in the campaign, although one that wasn’t touched on till this week. The President’s awesome power to appoint will likely to be used quite a lot, 3 more of the justices are nearly (or over) 80 years old. So amongst all the other detritus of what may well be the most divisive administration since Buchanan’s, we have to decide who amongst at least five candidates of varying temper and character we want to appoint to the court that will serve us into the 2030s. I’m not finding that a difficult task, but your mileage may vary.
And there is another factor propelling this year’s election. Both parties have traveled far down the road from what we call their bases believe. I have no idea what the Democrats should do, because, like Jeremy Corbyn, they have already driven over the cliff at high speed.
But on the Republican side, we are witnessing almost an internecine civil war. Leslie Loftis, writing on A Conservative Woman, again like me an American (or ex-pat, I’m not sure) writing on a British site explains it this way:
It’s gut check time for the GOP establishment. Will they really sacrifice principled leadership for the country to save their own insider income streams?
The rally to someone besides the Trump or Cruz window just closed. Christie’s attacks on Rubio in the latest debate and Bush’s sustained campaign against him in recent weeks worked. Rubio crashed to fifth with no complimentary bump for Christie or Bush. All three are done, even if only Christie recognizes it. Kasich had a great night, but he has no money and no ground game beyond last night.
Continue reading Only Ted Cruz can beat Hillary.
I think she has it pretty much correct, and I think I may as well add, that Cruz is one of the most brilliant legal scholars of his generation, while Donald Trump is far more like Hillary Clinton, than he’ll ever admit.
And that’s what all the Stürm und Drang is about.
Philip Augustine said:
Honestly, as an American, I disagree that the window has closed. I think Rubio will rally in South Carolina. He was always expected to do poorly in NH. The debate after Christie’s attack on him, he was seen as more or less the victor over the field and he’s received the support of South Carolina’s Governor Haley. She has become fairly popular nationally and some are speculating a Rubio/Haley ticket.
Furthermore, the RNC still gets to decide and the deciding factor is not these last primaries, South Carolina has traditionally carried more weight than the previous two as well the Super Tuesday elections coming up.
In the end, I can almost guarantee neither Trump or Cruz will get the nomination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
You could easily be right, and in fact, I’m OK with Rubio. Where I would be up in the air is trying to decide between Sanders and/or Clinton and Trump. But I do disagree, I think it will come down to Rubio or Cruz, and as of now, I think it’s even money. I do wish the bottom tier would just go home, so we could concentrate on the ones with some sort of path.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
This is what I tell ardent Trump supporters, “No matter what, I will not vote for Donald Trump.” It’s something for them to think about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Quite. I’d come very close to voting for Sanders before I did Trump. Sanders is wrong about almost everything but, and it’s important, he believes what he says, and maintains his integrity. My only qualm is the cooked spaghetti masquerading as spines in Congress.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
If it is Trump vs. Clinton/Sanders. I’d consider Sanders, out of integrity; however, planks of the Democrat platform, I just can’t betray my conscience, I will probably just altogether abstain my vote.
I’m not one who thinks one has to “vote” to have a voice. I believe that withholding your vote can be a sign of a vote of no confidence. I’d vote for other positions, but just not the President.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
That’s an honorable position, especially this year. I’m desperately hoping I don’t have to make that decision, because in this case the lesser evil, isn’t lesser by much!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Don’t get carried away by the endorsements for Rubio. As James L Petigru famously said of South Carolina politics (and still holds sway to this day), “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Now regardless… That’s funny.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Y’all are crazy if you would not support Trump against a Socialist and Marxist like Sanders and Clinton.
I see the Republican side as a race between Trump, Cruz and Rubio. I will not support Rubio as he now has the backing of the RNC elite . . . because their boy, Bush became a complete bust. My problem was trying to figure which would be the two person matchup that I would like to see. My decision: I pull the lever for Cruz tomorrow. As for Trey Gowdy, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott (all of which are good conservatives) in their backing of Rubio: I understand it in terms of politics. Each of them must play ball with the elites if they want to keep rising in the ranks of the political party.
But believe me, if Trump gets the nomination, he will hands down do something about our economy that neither Sander nor Clinton have the will to do. I’m tired of Democrats who compete on how much free stuff they will give away at our expense. With 49% of the country taking from the government isn’t the 51% taxed enough . . . not to mention our companies who can’t expand or hire or are moving out of this overtaxed nation? I have no problem in pulling the handle for Trump if that is way it ends . . . and I suspect it will quite frankly.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Nope, sorry Dave, not me, ever. Trump is nothing more than another Obama: cult-of-personality campaign. Look at his positions, but do it fast, they’ll be different in 15 minutes. He cares less about the country, AND THE PEOPLE, than Hillary!, cause don’t you know? It’s all about him and how great he is!!!
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Well I’m glad you’re not voting.
LikeLike
NEO said:
At that point, nope, not for President. Evil is evil, I’ve spent my life voting for the lesser evil, the only exception being Reagan, and look where it’s gotten us. Give me something to vote for, and this cycle that means Cruz, or possibly Rubio.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I seriously doubt either will make it because of the anger factor in the US for our politicians. The only one that taps into that to any extent is Cruz. So that is the battle I encourage. I would like Cruz to win that battle . . . but if not . . . then I’m not going to stand idly by while an Alinsky loving, Marxist and Socialist increase our debt by many more trilliions of dollars, eliminate the 2nd Ammendment and open the borders wide to illegals. You do what you want . . . but I would vote for a bum on the street before I would vote for either one of them . . . and I’ll be darned if I’d sit idly by and not make a concerted effort to defeat those avidly devout pro-aborts from taking office. Talk about evil: they are the epitome of evil. At least Trump changed his pro-abort stance from years ago to a moderate pro-life stance: better than the alternative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I’d vote for that bum.
[…] then I’m not going to stand idly by while an Alinsky loving, Marxist and “Socialist increase our debt by many more trilliions of dollars, eliminate the 2nd Ammendment and open the borders wide to illegals.” I thought you like Trump?! Or don’t h-1b visa count anymore. That’s how the meat packers imported most of our Somalians.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Legal immigration is our ‘bridge’ as the Pope through out his zinger yesterday. That is what I support and the enforcement of the laws of the land: which means that there are penalties for violating them. Otherwise we are a lawless country: and we are as long as Obama, Hillary a Sanders or a George Soros can get their way.
There is no melting pot anymore . . . we have some who are drawn by Capitalism and the opportunity to work and make money and we have another large group who are drawn by the benefits they can get: some are filing up to 10 nieces and nephews on the tax forms who never lived here. This is from the loopholes in the Child Tax Credit regulations. They have bilked us tax payers out of over 4.5 billion just this last year and the numbers seem to be rising exponentially. This is a recipe for complete economic collapse if the liberals keep going down this road.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
We were getting to be a pretty much lawless country before Obama, and yes, he has made it much worse, and Trump, like Clinton, will make it worse still. But until Congress has a spine imposed on them, it will simply get worse. Immigration is a mess, a lot of the Hispanics coming illegally are doing so simply because it’s the only way they will ever reunite their families. We need to repeal the whole thing and try again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I just don’t get your supposition that Trump will make this country lawless: what is the basis of that. He may be a puffed up egoist (in fact, he is) but I have heard nothing of his past or present that would make me think that he is not a law abiding citizen. So whether I like him or not . . . he looks like a saint compared to a Hillary or a Sanders. Hillary for one should be in jail and Bernie should be living in Sweden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Hillary and Bernie I agree on, no surprise there. Trump OTOH, is no more committed to the Constitution than Obama, it’s all about what HE wants, not what is legal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Citations please!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Turn it around, name one thing that Trump wants to do that is constitutionally a presidential power, I can’t think of one. And the Constitution is to America as the magisterium is to the Roman Catholic Church. That’s why Scalia was so important.
Some of them are good ideas, oh I take that back, enforcing immigration laws is in the president’s power, but how about constitutional law on takings as well? (Eminent domain, as in Kelo.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Where were you when the Supreme Court loosened the ‘meaning’ of eminent domain. That Trump took advantage of the law as defined by our Supreme Court was good business . . . but not the moral high ground. But look at the alternative: just a reminder of the alternative in case some have forgotten: https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
LikeLike
NEO said:
I wasn’t grown up enough yet to understand. But I did read Scalia on Kelo, he’s right. The way it is now is simply theft, although most of the states are tightening their laws, finally. The Constitution say public purposes only, that’s neither a shopping center parking lot, or a light rail project, if it is, it’s pure crony corruption, and should be prosecuted as fraud, cause it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Right . . . that is how it was. That definition was widened by the Supreme Court in the following decision when you and I were old enough to through our own hissy fit. But alas we did not:
‘The Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.’
Note that few states have gone up against this ruling. And you are right . . . its out and out thievery . . . as is the inheritance tax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Agree again. And yes, Donald followed the law, crassly but mostly. But that doesn’t make it right either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’m only saying that he is no diffeent than most large corporations that take advantage of the law . . . whether it is tax loopholes, eminent domain or establishing off-shore headquarters for their businesses. That’s a far cry from the scandals of Obama or Hillary who think the Constitution is outdated and outmoded and disregard the law every chance they can. They don’t skirt the law . . . they disobey the law and get away with it. There is a difference.
I think you see where I’m coming from. I don’t care if it takes a businessman that plays hardball by the rules that our pols made in order to beat one of these criminals who belong behind bars. After all, these are the same folk who when they are in congress or the senate vote their own raises and exempt themselves from the laws they bind us to. I just don’t see the equivalency between the two. And Sanders is a whole different problem: I don’t want to turn around after a term or two of him and be living in Sweden with 65% taxes . . . or worse.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Well chosen and apt, for once, Bosco.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Thank you for the encouragement.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Dan 11;21
This is what we have now, people becoming leader or president or king , obtaining the kingdom by flattering the most people.
You all are a case in point. You and the rest say……we will vote for the one who says the things I want to hear, the one who flatters me the most.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
NEO, I called Trump and his goons are coming to talk some sense into you, or break a leg or two. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Which defines the problem with Trump! 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Hey, goons are people too. 🙂
Let’s not be goonophobic. Or as Kramer might have put it: ‘you’re an anti-goonite’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person