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.