In an age when the media reports on Lindsay Lohan’s latest exploits and Presidential candidates focus on ‘lipstick on a pig’ during one of the most tumultuous times in American history, I don’t often enjoy watching the nightly news.
I was fortunate to catch the 60 Minutes feature on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday. Long known as a social conservative and a right-leaning Justice, Scalia has often come under fire for his “ultra-conservative” positions and resistance to change. Without having taken the time to look into his background, I accepted these claims at face value. What began as an interview to hype his new book turned out to be an exposé into the Scalia world view and judicial “originalism.”
Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what he believes it originally meant to our Founders who ratified it in 1787 – as opposed to many who interpret what it means to people today. America is one of the few nations in the world that follow common law which incorporates facts and rulings from various cases into the law as a way of keeping governmental power separate and balanced among the three branches. Unlike many so-called activist judges, Scalia does not seek to push an agenda, he hopes to restrict agendas. “The Constitution is not meant to facilitate change, it is meant to impede change.” Progress should instead come by enacting laws which incorporates compromise. Scalia went on to describe his views on flag burning, abortion, and torture.
It was disrespectful how the host, poked and prodded Scalia about the Bush v. Gore case in 2000. She asked him if the decision was based on politics, was it political, did it have political implications. It was frustrating to watch. Regardless of your view of whether or not Bush would have won under a recall, the Supreme Court case was not close. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case was whether the scheme the Florida Supreme Court had put together to stop the recount was Constitutional was not even close – 7-2.”
One of my favorite segments of the show was the discussion of the deep friendship between Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are two people who hold fundamentally opposite political views and interpret the Constitution very differently. “I respect the people who have (other views), but I think those views are just flat out wrong…I attack ideas, I don’t attack people and some very good people have some very bad ideas.” Scalia is a street-fighter. A self-professed ‘shin-kicker’ and contrarian thinker, Justice Scalia has provided America with the judicial discourse that the Founders had intended for the Supreme Court. As I sat and watched Scalia discuss his world view, the thing that impressed me most was the fact that these Supreme Court Justices – brilliant men and women – can peacefully discuss issues from very different perspectives and at the end of the day have a glass of wine together.
Our Founders intended for us to disagree. They intended for big complex ideas to be debated, discussed, and argued. They didn’t want radical change and so they separated powers and tried to impede potential changes. I disagree with Scalia on some things and agree with him on others, but his originalist view of the Constitution which resists radical change is important in an ever-faster changing world.
I was fortunate to catch the 60 Minutes feature on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday. Long known as a social conservative and a right-leaning Justice, Scalia has often come under fire for his “ultra-conservative” positions and resistance to change. Without having taken the time to look into his background, I accepted these claims at face value. What began as an interview to hype his new book turned out to be an exposé into the Scalia world view and judicial “originalism.”
Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what he believes it originally meant to our Founders who ratified it in 1787 – as opposed to many who interpret what it means to people today. America is one of the few nations in the world that follow common law which incorporates facts and rulings from various cases into the law as a way of keeping governmental power separate and balanced among the three branches. Unlike many so-called activist judges, Scalia does not seek to push an agenda, he hopes to restrict agendas. “The Constitution is not meant to facilitate change, it is meant to impede change.” Progress should instead come by enacting laws which incorporates compromise. Scalia went on to describe his views on flag burning, abortion, and torture.
It was disrespectful how the host, poked and prodded Scalia about the Bush v. Gore case in 2000. She asked him if the decision was based on politics, was it political, did it have political implications. It was frustrating to watch. Regardless of your view of whether or not Bush would have won under a recall, the Supreme Court case was not close. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case was whether the scheme the Florida Supreme Court had put together to stop the recount was Constitutional was not even close – 7-2.”
One of my favorite segments of the show was the discussion of the deep friendship between Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are two people who hold fundamentally opposite political views and interpret the Constitution very differently. “I respect the people who have (other views), but I think those views are just flat out wrong…I attack ideas, I don’t attack people and some very good people have some very bad ideas.” Scalia is a street-fighter. A self-professed ‘shin-kicker’ and contrarian thinker, Justice Scalia has provided America with the judicial discourse that the Founders had intended for the Supreme Court. As I sat and watched Scalia discuss his world view, the thing that impressed me most was the fact that these Supreme Court Justices – brilliant men and women – can peacefully discuss issues from very different perspectives and at the end of the day have a glass of wine together.
Our Founders intended for us to disagree. They intended for big complex ideas to be debated, discussed, and argued. They didn’t want radical change and so they separated powers and tried to impede potential changes. I disagree with Scalia on some things and agree with him on others, but his originalist view of the Constitution which resists radical change is important in an ever-faster changing world.
No comments:
Post a Comment