In fairness, I did not want to malign this man (whose opinions I usually disagreed with), but to note his importance to America. Yet, I had to choose a picture whose tone best fit what people thought of the man - for better and worse. So I chose a monochrome image of Scalia, as he tended to see things in Black or White, and not with the conflicting nuances that many people live with.
- - - - - -
This justice was a devout Catholic, a person who took 6 day creation as real (from what I've heard - which may or may not be entirely accurate). His life and his court decisions were influenced by his lack of doubt about anything. And this is where I fault the late justice.
One of the things I learned in Grad School was the idea of "Transformative Learning". This process involved a person doubting one of his/her core beliefs, and developing a completely different world view after examining the facts and testing his/her beliefs. From what I can tell, Scalia never had a transformative learning experience, as none of the reports I've recently read note that he had doubts about his beliefs.
Please note that I am not out to trash this man or his legacy. I have much to criticize about his believe in "Originalism" - it lends itself to the same intellectual stagnation found in many ultra-orthodox followers of religious faiths. They tend to argue over minor points, but never question whether the big answers provided to them are really indicative of a true right or wrong. Dogma is more important than what any law is supposed to provide for a society - a way to determine what is the right or wrong thing to do for the average person who has no time to learn all the details....
Why is this important?
As much as I dislike what Scalia stood for, I have to grant him credit for being consistent in the application of his core beliefs. But I fear having another person without doubt in any position of power. I'd have wanted for Truman to question whether dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima was the right thing to do, and then justify it to himself by the number of lives s shortened war would have saved. Can we afford to have another dogmatic person on the Supreme Court? I doubt it.
At the time I write this entry, the president hasn't nominated a successor to Scalia, nor has the Senate indicated any willingness to hold a vote on any nominated candidate. The GOP has signaled a desire to roll the dice and wait until the next president is in charge, where there will be a 50-50 possibility of the GOP putting in a radical judge. However, Obama could make a recess appointment (which I find doubtful for the time remaining in the week of 2/15-2/21) of an extreme liberal - who would be on the court until the end of the term, and be a deciding vote in the more divisive of potential decisions. Or, he could nominate a moderate, and let the GOP take the heat for not giving the person a quick vote. Either way, the public is now aware of how important the Supreme Court is to America.
Would we be better had Scalia lived?
The answer to this question depends on which political party you belong to, and what your core values are. I want the court stacked with social moderates - people beholding to neither political party, and who will check and balance the extremes of our elected leadership. Do I think this will happen? Maybe - if we're lucky....
No comments:
Post a Comment