The Irony of Scalia’s Legacy
*The irony, according to Ricardo, is that the groups of people most affected by Scalia’s decisions now hold the election of the next president under their sway, and the person who will name his successor is the first African-American president of the U.S. VL
By Tomas Ricardo, Friend of NewsTaco (3.3 minute read)
“Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it…”
With all due respect to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Mr. Shakespeare once again reminds us that there is little, if anything, new under the sun.
Justice Scalia’s public persona was that of a jovial, “hail fellow, well met” who regaled in entertaining friends with witticisms, clever tales, and a general joie de vivre. I read that he referred to his having sired nine children was due to “Vatican Roulette”, as he and his wife practiced Catholic Church doctrine when it came to birth control. His “best buddy” we’ve all been told was his ideological opposite, the liberal Justice Ruth Ginsberg.
[pullquote]What a clever, disingenuous way to mask his bias or prejudice . . .[/pullquote]The President doesn’t appoint Supreme Court Justices, the Senate’s consent is needed
Like the President who nominated him to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia seemed to be unperturbed by the consequences of his decisions, or his dissenting opinions. (I should point out here a small, but not insignificant point, which I believe is being mis-represented by many in the national media. [tweet_dis]A President does not appoint justices to the Supreme Court; the President nominates candidates for consideration by the U.S. Senate, whose consent is sine qua non for the nominee to be sworn in as a Justice.)[/tweet_dis]
I never understood, much less appreciated, Justice Scalia’s adherence to “original intent” in his reading of the U.S. Constitution. At times, I even imagined his committing a fraud. What a clever, disingenuous way to mask his bias or prejudice against a central government designing programs or providing appropriations to “promote the common welfare” in the Union…actions that he saw as a re-distribution of wealth from well-to-do Americans to other American citizens, or residents, and in some instances, workers residing without legal status in the United States.
An easy out
When the law in question before the Court related to social issues such as gay rights, affirmative action, a woman’s right to choose, the affordable care act, financing of elections, permissible sexual acts between consenting adults, Justice Scalia employed the ‘strict construction’ of the Constitution to justify his decisions. Such an easy out.
[pullquote]We must not gloss over the decedent’s actions over three decades that brought so much pain and hardship to millions of his fellow Americans.[/pullquote]True, there is no “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution. Nor is there a provision in the Constitution granting women the right to vote. Still, for over a century, women in this country were denied the right to vote. I may be mistaken, but the Constitution contained a provision that “slaves” for census purposes, “shall be counted as 3/5 of a person.” An originalist interpretation, therefore, must mean that a descendant of slaves owned by Mr. Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, are entitled to no more than 3/5 of a vote of a white person. As I read it, the 13th Amendment did not specifically address the 3/5 person issue. Not a constitutional scholar, I do not write for the Academy; I write for ordinary citizens such as myself who often fall prey to shibboleths such as “strict constructionism” or an ”originalist” view of the constitution to mask bias and prejudice.
I do not wish at this time to diminish in any way Justice Scalia’s professional achievements or his service to our country. We must not, however, in mourning a life taken in such a sudden and unexpected way, gloss over the decedent’s actions over three decades that brought so much pain and hardship to millions of his fellow Americans. And throughout it all, Justice Scalia, through the suffering and the pain of others, played the role of a “hail fellow well met.” And why shouldn’t he? He wielded power, and influence, from on high, given his seat on the United States Supreme Court. He relished the power, delighted in its influence, and if you didn’t like it, you “go smoke a pipe.” Then again, he could point out that his “best buddy” was Justice Ginsberg. How bad could he be if this lovely, loving, caring woman and jurist was his best buddy?
Rich irony, this, his leaving life at this time, so suddenly, unexpectedly, in the middle of a rancorous, loud, and partisan election year. His leaving life when those who have been most injured by his words and his actions…women, gays, Latinos, African Americans, working men and women, immigrants…now in 2016 hold the levers of electoral power and will decide who the next President of the United States will be. And whose incumbent President, a young African American, the first African American to be President of the United States, will select the nominee to take the place of Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.
“Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it…”
[Photo by Peter Stevens/Flickr]
