Antonin Scalia Shows His Prejudice Once More

[R. U. Sirius]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Okay, I can SOMEWHAT understand his reasoning. On the other hand, insisting on reading the Constitution solely according to what (you think) the original writers' intentions were shows nothing but fear and contempt for the fact, recognized by the fact that we have an amendment process, that society changes and evolves. If we kept solely to the "original text", not even the Bill of Rights would be included. Black people would still be legally only worth three-fifths as much as a white people, women would still be seen as nothing but breeding chattle and Native Americans would be left out of consideration altogether. To say the Constitution can only be properly read an interpreted through how you think the original writers intended is to raise them to the level of gods, omniscient and infallible.

Additionally, to say that the government must be neutral between different religions, but can still favor religion over non-religion, is to set a very dangerous precedent. By that logic, all one religious group would need to do in order to strip a rival religious group of their rights is to engage in a publicity campaign to convince a large enough swath of people that the rival wasn't "really" a religion, made all the easier by the fact that "religion" is never defined in the constitution, and you would be very hard-pressed to find two different people who would agree on a definition in all the particulars. We see this in the Islamophobia of the Republican Party, with Paul Ryan claiming that First Amendment protections don't apply to Muslims. From there, it's a very short step to theocracy. The only way to remain neutral in religious matters is to remain neutral in ALL religious matters, including between religion and non-religion.

[Nemo]

I was going to start this same thread when I got here. Beaten to it. Darn.

I'm surprised that Scalia is openly declaring this, though. Thomas Jefferson declared that it does no harm for someone to say there are twenty gods or none. James Madison was a deist who rejected Scalia's god. In any case, freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. Suppose we had an Islamic majority and they wished to implement school prayer to align with the daily prayers of Islam. Obviously, Justice Scalia would not like that, as supporting such a thing with public money would require Christians to violate their free exercise of religion. If your religion holds that other religions are false, then you cannot be free to practice or support your own faith if you are not also free to not support other faiths. That's all freedom from religion means.

[Alehksunos]

And why are members of the Supreme Court appointed for life - unless said member chooses to retire or resign - again?

[Lt. Fred]

Reference to the 3/5 clause.

Yeah, that would have been overturned inter alia by the ole' Thirteenth Amendment. Note that, by the way, the 3/5ths clause is part of the formula for determining the number of seats of Congress for each state. The Southern states wanted to count all their slaves as population for the purposes of representation, essentially giving all the white owners loads more votes. The North wanted to count NONE of the non-voting population. So they compromised, in ridiculous and morally indefensible fashion. It's the American way.

[Nemo]

I believe the idea is that justices should be above the political process and the partisanship that entails. Of course, Scalia isn't.

Yeah, that would have been overturned inter alia by the ole' Thirteenth Amendment. Note that, by the way, the 3/5ths clause is part of the formula for determining the number of seats of Congress for each state. The Southern states wanted to count all their slaves as population for the purposes of representation, essentially giving all the white owners loads more votes. The North wanted to count NONE of the non-voting population. So they compromised, in ridiculous and morally indefensible fashion. It's the American way.

Neither side wanted to end slavery, though. Not even the North. The North wanted money on property taxes, and was more worried about limiting Southern power than with helping the slaves out. Kind of a grey and gray morality situation.

[Askold]

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

...But that is a newer thing than the separation of church and state.

Going only by the oldest iteration would have been going with the most traditional one like he claimed. (But that would mean allowing slavery and disregarding every update to the laws and constitution.)

Going by the newest iteration (which is what you are supposed to do) of laws and constitution would have meant accepting the separation of church and state.

Instead, Scalia is cherry picking between constitution and "traditions" so that he can get what he wants even if it is unconstitutional.

[R. U. Sirius]

Reference to the 3/5 clause.

Yeah, that would have been overturned inter alia by the ole' Thirteenth Amendment. Note that, by the way, the 3/5ths clause is part of the formula for determining the number of seats of Congress for each state. The Southern states wanted to count all their slaves as population for the purposes of representation, essentially giving all the white owners loads more votes. The North wanted to count NONE of the non-voting population. So they compromised, in ridiculous and morally indefensible fashion. It's the American way.

You completely missed my point. If the Constitution were only ever read and interpreted in light of the original text, there would BE no Thirteenth Amendment, maybe not even an amendment process. Even the Bill of Rights was a later add-on to appease the states that refused to ratify the Constitution without the protections in it.

[Ironchew]

Pope Scalia says his job is stress-free. What a surprise. Funny how "what the Founders wanted" always seems to align with what Scalia wants, especially when he feels like making a radical break with case law to impose his church's beliefs on others.

And why are members of the Supreme Court appointed for life - unless said member chooses to retire or resign - again?

Justices would have to do political favors to be re-elected or re-appointed, and one lifetime appointment was a hack to minimize the influence of political whims on case law. Unfortunately, outside influence has easily found its way around that and the only way to stop a corrupt justice now is with impeachment -- and we know no justice will be impeached for the same reason no justice was ever assassinated. The public doesn't care that much about faces they don't see often.

[dpareja]

Pope Scalia says his job is stress-free. What a surprise. Funny how "what the Founders wanted" always seems to align with what Scalia wants, especially when he feels like making a radical break with case law to impose his church's beliefs on others.

And why are members of the Supreme Court appointed for life - unless said member chooses to retire or resign - again?

Justices would have to do political favors to be re-elected or re-appointed, and one lifetime appointment was a hack to minimize the influence of political whims on case law. Unfortunately, outside influence has easily found its way around that and the only way to stop a corrupt justice now is with impeachment -- and we know no justice will be impeached for the same reason no justice was ever assassinated. The public doesn't care that much about faces they don't see often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached

[Ironchew]

Pope Scalia says his job is stress-free. What a surprise. Funny how "what the Founders wanted" always seems to align with what Scalia wants, especially when he feels like making a radical break with case law to impose his church's beliefs on others.

And why are members of the Supreme Court appointed for life - unless said member chooses to retire or resign - again?

Justices would have to do political favors to be re-elected or re-appointed, and one lifetime appointment was a hack to minimize the influence of political whims on case law. Unfortunately, outside influence has easily found its way around that and the only way to stop a corrupt justice now is with impeachment -- and we know no justice will be impeached for the same reason no justice was ever assassinated. The public doesn't care that much about faces they don't see often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached

Well, okay. One justice was impeached 210 years ago and was acquitted. My point was that no SCOTUS justice was ever successfully removed by the process of impeachment.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think we can all agree that orginalism is a stupid philosophy.  Thomas Jefferson himself wasn't exactly kind to it.

“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

[Ironchew]

I think we can all agree that orginalism is a stupid philosophy.  Thomas Jefferson himself wasn't exactly kind to it.

For those in power, it's not so much a philosophy as it is a way for them to wrap their own ideas in the flag, i.e. what the founders want always happens to be what Scalia wants. Any criticism of his ideas can be fallaciously deflected by saying " Your murmurings are not against me, but against the Founders*."

* This is analogous to what preachers and apologists for religion love to do. What their god wants curiously happens to be what the individual wants.

[Old Viking]

He makes no attempt whatsoever to disguise his preferences.

[Ghoti]

He makes no attempt whatsoever to disguise his prejudices.

FIFY

[Veras]

Pope Scalia says his job is stress-free. What a surprise. Funny how "what the Founders wanted" always seems to align with what Scalia wants, especially when he feels like making a radical break with case law to impose his church's beliefs on others.

And why are members of the Supreme Court appointed for life - unless said member chooses to retire or resign - again?

Justices would have to do political favors to be re-elected or re-appointed, and one lifetime appointment was a hack to minimize the influence of political whims on case law. Unfortunately, outside influence has easily found its way around that and the only way to stop a corrupt justice now is with impeachment -- and we know no justice will be impeached for the same reason no justice was ever assassinated. The public doesn't care that much about faces they don't see often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached

Well, okay. One justice was impeached 210 years ago and was acquitted. My point was that no SCOTUS justice was ever successfully removed by the process of impeachment.

It's pretty funny though to think about the reason that Justice Chase was impeached, given the conversation that we're having.  According to Wikipedia:

Political bias and arbitrary rulings, promoting a partisan political agenda on the bench

I was more under the impression that Congress was going for political retribution against Chief Justice Marshall, but whatever.