Requiem for a Ghost Shirt

As you are aware, Justice Antonin Scalia has died. I am sorry to see him go. He was a jurist who deployed his cherished constitution as a means to illuminate the contours of a republic. In this he was a solitary anachronism in Washington. One who must have seemed beyond eccentric to peers who certainly have no need for any dusty parchment to inform their personal policy preferences.

I always found it interesting that a court observer could guess with extremely high accuracy how both Scalia and any member of the opposing wing would find on a given case. Both were predictable for predictably different reasons. I wouldn’t place its stewardship in the hands of a literally retarded person, like say Representative Corrine Brown, but most sentient laymen could navigate the constitution and reach something similar to Scalia’s conclusions. In contrast, to forecast a verdict of the liberal wing (manned presently by three jews and a thighs latina) one normally only need ask what will be most injurious to the interests and traditions of the country’s white founding stock. Know the question, and you’ll know the answer.

One of the many sources of liberal apoplexy toward Scalia was his recalcitrance toward judicial imposition of progress. This historically being the left’s preferred mode of implementation. When the public refuses to plunge a knife into its neck, that’s when the court steps in. And when Scalia declined to add weight against the hilt, the left was left to howl.

Because most liberals are certain the terms virtuous and constitutional are synonyms. Once they’ve alighted on the former, then the latter should simply be a fait accompli. Good things are constitutional, as bad things are not: QE fucking D. Thus shrieks littered the countryside whenever Scalia would find against a preferred interest group citing constitutional limitations. The rebuttals were customarily erudite. WTF bigot? The constitution doesn’t say Hate is ok.

I recall a slightly more reserved strain of this jurisprudential theorizing from a debate a few years ago. While discussing a topic I don’t even now recall with a liberal I don’t even now know, I asked how he squared his policy prescription with the 10th Amendment. He asked what that was and seemed to carefully digest my description. After a period of thoughtful reflection, he finally shook his head and rendered a verdict with complete seriousness:

No, I don’t like it.

What’s liking got to do with it? I couldn’t restrain a LOL.

But a great deal of leftist thought was clarified by that single sentence. So after praising his refreshing candor, I left with the hope Obama would place him on his Supreme Court short list. Though with the advice he replace “I don’t like it” with more proven constitutional doctrines for the confirmation hearings. These including such staples as “emanating penumbras,” “liberty funds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt,” and “one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In the end, they all just mean the same thing: I don’t like it. And just between you and me, there’s not a flyspeck of sweet mystery in the tenth.

So now we come to Scalia’s replacement. Republicans have to know they would be coronating Donald Trump by confirming any nominee from this administration. But if Obama’s intellect was equal to his opinion of it, he would scour the sewers for a devil with an angel’s face. One with a ready smile and charming demeanor, who could still be relied upon to adjudicate like Pol Pot. Perhaps even a traitorous white gentile to help the medicine go down.

Fortunately, he is more likely to put forth one of his glowering gibsmedats who will spend the hearings berating stoic senators for even asking a strong dark BLT to justify themselves before this racist panel. Ahh, how the months will steal away waiting for space to open in the docket for a vote.

But while awaiting that, I’d encourage readers to seek and enjoy a few of Scalia’s many Supreme Court opinions. Some of his dissents especially are Sistine Chapels of cultured mockery. And while the constitution will not defend us, he still fought to defend it. A good man born after his fight.

Godspeed Nino.

11 thoughts on “Requiem for a Ghost Shirt

  1. Pingback: Requiem for a Ghost Shirt | Reaction Times

    • The Bishop traveled past the ranch, observing a horde of Lears, but when summoned by the Sheriff to attend to a death there, was by then “out of town”. Hence, Cinderella was called upon, could not imagine a political purpose for an autopsy, and followed Texas law of embalming [ washing away troublesome knowledge ] before transportation out of state. Give it a wrap. This is merely an event creating an opportunity for the people’s chosen representatives to rule. Which will require more Lears.

  2. Some of his dissents especially are Sistine Chapels of cultured mockery.

    Ha ha, good line. That’s how I’d describe some of your writings too, Porter😉

    Surprisingly (to me anyway), Scalia is/was generally ranked as only the third most conservative justice on the Supreme Court. According to a UC Berkeley study, Scalia is ranked about midway between Alito and Roberts, and he clearly drifted leftward since about the year 2000.

    Here are the rankings of the justices, from right to left:

    1. Thomas
    2. Alito
    3. Scalia
    4. Roberts
    5. Kennedy
    6. Breyer
    7. Kagan
    8. Sotomayor
    9. Ginsburg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

    • Jeppo I wrote a page-long response that just evaporated. One point of which being to acknowledge your yeoman’s work in mining the numbers of various issues. Though here I’d take those conservative-liberal trend lines with cinder-block sized grains of salt. The criteria for each are widely debated and constantly shifting. One of the graphs tracked lib/con leanings from 1935 to present. Which I suppose had to be done on some rolling scale of relativity, as their antique conservative counterparts wouldn’t recognize neoconservatism. And liberalism didn’t use to mean anti-white, as now it means little aside.

      So is a Donald Trump conservative or liberal? As we know, the pool-boys who purport to speak for the former would certainly have strong contrary opinions. I also wonder if those linked evaluations would consider a scenario where Scalia thwarted a republican initiative citing constitutional limitations as an exercise in conservatism or liberalism.

      Also I nearly spilled my Hate upon reading this passage (again from the linked Wikipedia page):

      In the 1970s, the Court shifted in a more conservative direction when President Richard Nixon appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger and strong conservative Justice Lewis Powell.

      Strong conservative Justice Lewis Powell? Someone wheel-out Yoko for another screaming session. For it was none other than this strong conservative justice who shat out the diversity industry in 1978 with his Bakke opinion.

      On June 28, 1978—34 years ago today—a split Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 that although affirmative action admissions policies were often constitutional, the University of California Medical School at Davis had violated the Fourteenth Amendment when it denied admission to a white man simply because 16 of the 100 seats were reserved for non-white students.

      Allan Bakke, a white man, had twice sought admission to the medical school, and had been rejected both times. His college GPA and test scores exceeded those of any of the 16 minority students admitted; however, the University’s affirmative action program automatically set aside each of those 16 seats for non-white students.
      The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where Bakke contended that the University had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause by refusing him admission solely on the basis of his race.

      The Supreme Court found 5-to-4 in favor of Bakke; however, the ruling was not clear-cut. Four of the justices contended that the racial quota system was a violation of civil rights; four others argued that it was constitutionally permissible. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., was torn. He contended that the use of race was valid as one of several admissions criteria, but ultimately broke the tie in favor of Bakke, arguing that the University’s rigid use of this system was unconstitutional.

      In his opinion, with which four other justices concurred, Powell wrote:

      . . . it is evident that the Davis special admission program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court. It tells applicants who are not Negro, Asian, or Chicano that they are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in an entering class. No matter how strong their qualifications, quantitative and extracurricular, including their own potential for contribution to educational diversity, they are never afforded the chance to compete with applicants from the preferred groups for the special admissions seats. At the same time the preferred applicants have the opportunity to compete for every seat in the class.

      The split decision sent mixed messages. It upheld affirmative action systems as constitutional in some cases; however, it also placed limitations on the use of such policies, defining as unconstitutional the rigid application of racial quotas to the extent that said quotas went beyond ensuring diversity to infringe upon the rights of another group of students.

      Thus an entire philosophy, industry, legal doctrine, and political movement were concocted out of the ether on the spot. All by one strong conservative cravenly casting about for covering language to signal his virtue to the cocktail circuit while still denying black demands. And so his offhand weaseling of well, maybe if it was for ‘diversity’ it might be ok was latched onto as if holy writ, and the course of a country permanently altered.

      How many ships sink under the weight of cowards.

      • Point taken about the dodgy criteria used to determine such rankings. And to call affirmative action’s mack daddy a “strong conservative” is preposterous, but that’s Wikipedia for ya. After reading that I can’t blame you for almost spilling your Hate.

        As for Trump being a liberal or conservative, I think he’s fairly moderate on most issues. Except of course on the only issue that really matters: conserving the actual nation.

        To the pool boys of NRO et al, wanting to guard the borders and enforce existing immigration laws are definitive proof of Trump’s incipient fascism. On the “””conservative””” issues that they really care about, like ethanol subsidies, eminent domain and the ongoing existence of the Export-Import Bank, Trump is clearly a liberal.

      • Great synopsis, Porter. I remember studying the Bakke case in Constitutional Law class in law school and cringing. Of course, the professor was a flaming liberal trying to appear neutral, most of the class were young, indoctrinated Cultural Marxists, and the few of us who still had functional use of our cerebral cortex mostly sat in silence, afraid of the ostracization. (Not proud of this, but sometimes survival comes before ideology in confined spaces…..)

  3. Do people actually sleep with a pillow over their face–and still intend to wake up, I mean? Then again, what murderer would be so lazy as to just leave it there? Very odd.

    Regardless, what follows is the press conference Mitch McConnell should hold in response to whomever Obama shits forth.

    • If he could carry that act for an 11.25-month filibuster of the nominee(s), I’d sell my cloak and move to Kentucky just so I could vote for him.

  4. The Constitution has been mortally wounded since FDR made the court into liberalism’s puppet in 1937. Still, Scalia almost single-handedly kept the comatose patient alive on life-support for 30 years. It’ll flatline soon enough, but I’m grateful that the day of reckoning was at least postponed by a few decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s