![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Death of Scalia
Feb. 16th, 2016 12:35 amI've been trying to think of a way to be at least moderately gracious in the passing of a US Supreme Court justice this past weekend, that of Antonin Scalia. My initial reaction on hearing the news was cautious optimisim that this man could finally do no more damage to society, to politics, to the law or to the US Constitution. Not very charitable or kind of me. So perhaps after a few days, I would be a bit more reflective.
Screw that. I'm already 49 and it will take another 49 years before I'm calm enough for that level of equanimity.
This is a man with considerable intellectual intellect who decided consciously to use his superpowers for evil rather than good. Scalia had a particular philosophy --that white slaveowners 200 years ago knew all and there were no questions they didn't already considered with answers encoded into the Constitution and its amendments-- and proceeded to bend & twist any law, thought, argument or rights into that restrictive, narrow view.
Scalia, I believe, never considered the human aspects of what he was examining on the bench. Funamentalism allows no intellectual curiousity, no variation from a strict line, no introspection about right, wrong, or fairness. People don't matter in his viewpoint: only what the Constitution says. And if his particular version of the Constitution requires mass suffering, so be it.
It's a convenient framework. It absolves one of having to think about consequences, of having to consider implications or repurcussions. It removes the requirement to even consider the post-Constitution body of precedent. If one's reading of the Consitution says "X," and later precedent said "Y," it is required then to correct the error of "Y" by demanding strict adherence to "X" --even if there is disagreement about precisely what "X" was supposed to mean or how it should apply.
I intensely dislike those who consider their own opinion so completely and irrevocably correct that they need not even listen to others, unless of course it is to berate them for their childish perspectives. I make errors, my friends make errors, scientists make errors, and even judges make errors. Scalia never made errors, and made a number of speeches in which he continued to berate his fellow jurists for daring to venture from his delivered truth. For all his intellectual talents, this single fault is the fatal one IMHO which outweights all other virtues: monumental hubris.
Like religious fundamentalists, to express doubt is to fail. Doubt is evil. Doubt brings questions which might distract one from the true faith. Distraction from the true faith is evil. Besides, once one has the received truth, one can rest in righteous peace that no other factors or opionions matter.
Some folks on Twitter seem to have shared my disgust with him. Some of my favourites:
I will not miss the man who fought every legal battle he could to against equality of genders, sexual orientation and more. Mercifully, he lost more than he won, but we're going to be living with the fallout of his narrowness for years to come thanks to Citizens United and other cases he did carry.
Sadly, the nomination of his successor is going to be ugly. Nominations have always been a somewhat political process but the past 20 years have demonstrated it becoming almost completely a political game where ideological purity is more important than thoughtful reflection or legal experience. The recent GOP announcements that they will simply refuse to even have committee hearings on whoever is nominated is insane. How ironic is that the party which most closely aligns itself with strict consitutionalism will negate the instruction of the Constitution on the nomination for replacing for a strict constitutionalist?
I could keep going on, but you get the gist. I'm not at all sorry the man is dead. I think the world is now a little less evil than it was late last week, and that my life and long range prospects are just a wee bit better for his passing.
Now perhaps Clarence Thomas might actually say something from the bench.
Screw that. I'm already 49 and it will take another 49 years before I'm calm enough for that level of equanimity.
This is a man with considerable intellectual intellect who decided consciously to use his superpowers for evil rather than good. Scalia had a particular philosophy --that white slaveowners 200 years ago knew all and there were no questions they didn't already considered with answers encoded into the Constitution and its amendments-- and proceeded to bend & twist any law, thought, argument or rights into that restrictive, narrow view.
Scalia, I believe, never considered the human aspects of what he was examining on the bench. Funamentalism allows no intellectual curiousity, no variation from a strict line, no introspection about right, wrong, or fairness. People don't matter in his viewpoint: only what the Constitution says. And if his particular version of the Constitution requires mass suffering, so be it.
It's a convenient framework. It absolves one of having to think about consequences, of having to consider implications or repurcussions. It removes the requirement to even consider the post-Constitution body of precedent. If one's reading of the Consitution says "X," and later precedent said "Y," it is required then to correct the error of "Y" by demanding strict adherence to "X" --even if there is disagreement about precisely what "X" was supposed to mean or how it should apply.
I intensely dislike those who consider their own opinion so completely and irrevocably correct that they need not even listen to others, unless of course it is to berate them for their childish perspectives. I make errors, my friends make errors, scientists make errors, and even judges make errors. Scalia never made errors, and made a number of speeches in which he continued to berate his fellow jurists for daring to venture from his delivered truth. For all his intellectual talents, this single fault is the fatal one IMHO which outweights all other virtues: monumental hubris.
Like religious fundamentalists, to express doubt is to fail. Doubt is evil. Doubt brings questions which might distract one from the true faith. Distraction from the true faith is evil. Besides, once one has the received truth, one can rest in righteous peace that no other factors or opionions matter.
Some folks on Twitter seem to have shared my disgust with him. Some of my favourites:
- Mad props to whoever found all of Scalia's horcruxes.
- Millions of women to meet soon to decide what shall be done with Scalia's body.
- It's amazing he lived to be 89. How can one frail human body contain so much evil that long?
- One gay man wrote: "This is a guy who spent a significant amount of his career trying to ensure I could never marry or have sex."
I will not miss the man who fought every legal battle he could to against equality of genders, sexual orientation and more. Mercifully, he lost more than he won, but we're going to be living with the fallout of his narrowness for years to come thanks to Citizens United and other cases he did carry.
Sadly, the nomination of his successor is going to be ugly. Nominations have always been a somewhat political process but the past 20 years have demonstrated it becoming almost completely a political game where ideological purity is more important than thoughtful reflection or legal experience. The recent GOP announcements that they will simply refuse to even have committee hearings on whoever is nominated is insane. How ironic is that the party which most closely aligns itself with strict consitutionalism will negate the instruction of the Constitution on the nomination for replacing for a strict constitutionalist?
I could keep going on, but you get the gist. I'm not at all sorry the man is dead. I think the world is now a little less evil than it was late last week, and that my life and long range prospects are just a wee bit better for his passing.
Now perhaps Clarence Thomas might actually say something from the bench.
