Thursday, March 24, 2005

The Whining Justice

Kind of like the Raging Queen, only much more stupid.
Justice Antonin Scalia gave a speech recently that was covered by CNN. Read their article here:
In it he tries to frame his views as more pro-democratic, more flexible than more liberal and reasonable interpretations of the Constitution. I just wonder how flexible your thinking can be if you believe the government is divinely derived-- the seed of God himself. Toward the end, he whined about abortion, how nothing can be done to end it short of a new constitutional amendment, and ripped Chief Justice Earl Warren, saying:

"Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution," said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986.
He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948.
"You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality, it's hard not to follow," Scalia said, in response to a question from the audience. END QUOTE.

This in itself is not strange. Officers of the court do engage in political activity; even coercive, anti-democratic political activity, as Vincent Bugliosi tells us in his article: "None Dare Call It Treason."
QUOTE:In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. ... The Court majority, after knowingly transforming the votes of 50 million Americans into nothing and throwing out all of the Florida undervotes (around 60,000), actually wrote that their ruling was intended to preserve "the fundamental right" to vote. This elevates audacity to symphonic and operatic levels. The Court went on to say, after stealing the election from the American people, "None are more conscious of the vital limits on its judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people." END QUOTE.

Yes, I'd have to say forcing his choice for president onto the likes of me is political maneuvering of the highest order. As if Scalia is above it all. Yeah right.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?