For the past week, I've been listening to Scalia Dissents. The thing that has struck me about his view on the Supreme Court rulings he hasn't gone along with is how aligned I think he is with the framers of the Constitution. As he details his reasoning for a dissent, I keep thinking, of course, why doesn't everyone go along with that?
The reasons an activist court doesn't go along with it is that they don't care about the rule of law or the constitutionality if it doesn't fit their liberal agenda or looks to be in line with the populist thinking at the time, which generally equates to the most vocal. Antonin Scalia minced no words in denouncing his fellow supreme justices when they stray from the Constitution, historical precedent which is grounded in longstanding acceptance by the people, especially those that wrote the Constitution and bending interpretation of the law to include classes of people supposedly harmed that were never considered harmed before.
There is some argument that is if one person is harmed that there has to be five more like him that didn't have the resources to bring an argument all the way to the Supreme Court. Then, to rule in that person's favor sets a precedent that millions have to suffer with for decades to come. The Civil War came about partly because of a Supreme Court ruling by the Dred Scott decision. Roe vs. Wade has killed millions. A fact, regardless of which way a person falls on the issue of abortion. I equate it to cutting off one's nose despite his face. I think because of untended consequences the Supreme Court has the right to refuse to hear certain cases.
Scalia has often been accused of being a right-winger Justice. Without going into a debate about what the difference is between a conservative and a liberal, I find Scalia's Constitutional basis decision making a proper way to rule on cases brought before them. Scalia was a great proponent of the 14th Amendment where the Constitution doesn't address an issue specifically then the issue lies with the state to legislate. That hasn't sat well with the liberal mindset where they want the Federal platform to control all behavior along with everyone's money. If you sense a conservative bias here, you're right. On that basis, perhaps that is why I relate so well to Scalia Dissents.
One thing is certain. The law can be argued, turned and twisted to fit almost anyone's notion of what they want the outcome to be. The same can be said of the Bible. Scalia was mostly immune to it and weighed the merits of a case on the Constitution. An activist court embraces the turns and twists to codify a ruling contrary to the Constitution for the aforementioned reasons.
From the founding of our nation, the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong fewer times than right. Still, that doesn't justify the wrong ones. It has always been an activist court to some degree. That is why some much emphasis has been placed on the selection of the Justice by the President. People want the bias to be in their favor, not the opposing party. Yet, to the surprise of many, the judges appointed by Republican presidents rule in favor of the liberal mindset. Most of those rulings are grounded in the Constitution. So, there we have it, not everyone on both sides of the political divide gets their way all the time. Although, I would argue those rulings with the most import have been activist rulings and Scalia would be quick to tell you so and why.
Don't take my word for it. Go to Audible.com and get the Scalia Dissents for yourself and listen to it. A person may wrap their arms around it or go into a foot-stomping tirade. I find most, not all, the logic irrefutable when measured by the way Scalia reasons the issue by Constitution
No comments:
Post a Comment