I was asked today when was the last time the U.S. Supreme Court had a liberal majority? I would claim the Burger led SCOTUS that ended in 1986 (even though Burger was appointed by Nixon, he was never very conservative). So for most of my student's lives there has been a conservatively led SCOTUS that held in check the sway of populist sympathy, liberal empathy, and Republican neo-conservativism. An important icon in that time span was Antonin Scalia. My heartfelt condolences are given to his surviving family.
Agree with him or not, Scalia held that words meant something at the time they were written down and we could not simply change what words meant because we wanted to at any point in time. Scalia did not hold back from scolding any other Justices on SCOTUS. Scalia did not hold back from scolding any parties to any dispute before the Supreme Court. His was a principled stand held firm in an age where relevancy and emotion were often allowed to overcome logic and fact. Scalia will be missed by all of us who held firm to the belief that the U.S. Constitution meant exactly what its words meant when it was written.
I am no legal scholar, nor even a student of judicial politics in the U.S. For my two cents, however, I am looking forward to the passionate, stupid, intelligent, deleterious process that will be the confirmation of a new member of SCOTUS. I believe we will see a process that makes the hearings that confirmed the nomination of Justice Thomas with the sort of acrimony before the fact that killed any chance of a Bork confirmation hearing pale by comparison. I believe that statements that the current president should not nominate a candidate and that no hearing will be held as long as the current leadership of the U.S. Senate is in place are dangerous to the process of democracy in this country--just as dangerous as the allowance of 9 unelected individuals determining what the law means for the population. I also believe that the current president of the U.S. will nominate an individual who will in their ideological position threaten the general good of the population of the U.S. with their decision-making (see my statement about 9 unelected individuals). Hey, if we do not want to have 9 individuals decide the law, then make sure the congress makes few laws and that the make laws that follow the meaning of the Constitution and do not cause harm to the general welfare of the population--it really is that simple. Do not blame SCOTUS for doing stupid things when the Legislature and the President first approved the stupid thing that SCOTUS must debate.
Agree with him or not, Scalia held that words meant something at the time they were written down and we could not simply change what words meant because we wanted to at any point in time. Scalia did not hold back from scolding any other Justices on SCOTUS. Scalia did not hold back from scolding any parties to any dispute before the Supreme Court. His was a principled stand held firm in an age where relevancy and emotion were often allowed to overcome logic and fact. Scalia will be missed by all of us who held firm to the belief that the U.S. Constitution meant exactly what its words meant when it was written.
I am no legal scholar, nor even a student of judicial politics in the U.S. For my two cents, however, I am looking forward to the passionate, stupid, intelligent, deleterious process that will be the confirmation of a new member of SCOTUS. I believe we will see a process that makes the hearings that confirmed the nomination of Justice Thomas with the sort of acrimony before the fact that killed any chance of a Bork confirmation hearing pale by comparison. I believe that statements that the current president should not nominate a candidate and that no hearing will be held as long as the current leadership of the U.S. Senate is in place are dangerous to the process of democracy in this country--just as dangerous as the allowance of 9 unelected individuals determining what the law means for the population. I also believe that the current president of the U.S. will nominate an individual who will in their ideological position threaten the general good of the population of the U.S. with their decision-making (see my statement about 9 unelected individuals). Hey, if we do not want to have 9 individuals decide the law, then make sure the congress makes few laws and that the make laws that follow the meaning of the Constitution and do not cause harm to the general welfare of the population--it really is that simple. Do not blame SCOTUS for doing stupid things when the Legislature and the President first approved the stupid thing that SCOTUS must debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment