He stood in defense of gun rights and capital punishment, while resisting gay rights, abortion and affirmative action. And his rigorous attention to the text of the Constitution and of laws has changed the way liberals as well as conservatives conceive of the role of the highest court.
Scalia’s approach to legal thinking, it is said, was to suss out the founders’ intentions and to resist any changes to the text they produced. To my thinking, this means to exclude any possibility of applying reason because of changes in society or of modernity. Must we be stuck in 1787 forever? I give you Citizens United as a prime example of the fallacy of this thinking. Corporations as people? That’s just nuts.
Now I’m not saying there aren’t universal truths in the original documents that by right are sacrosanct, the First amendment being one shining example. But in another example, AR-15’s are not muskets. Female voter suffrage is another. The founders’ are not gods.
A great mind, no doubt, but that didn’t mean I agreed with him, and I didn’t. Yes, we should never lose sight of the fundamentals the founders addressed, but as you point out, there are societal and technological changes they could never have imagined, and those things must be considered. Citizens United was probably the most wrong-headed decision to come from the court in my lifetime. It has destroyed our election system. Female suffrage, fortunately, was corrected by an amendment, and I hope someday the Second Amendment will itself be amended to acknowledge that we no longer have militias or muskets.
Regardless of one’s politics, he was a true asset to the Court. And yes, he will be sorely missed in my opinion.
He was a brilliant constitutional scholar whether you agreed with his politics or not. Not likely his replacement will be of similar stature.
Scalia will be sorely missed. By some, but not all. I won’t miss him at all. Politico accurately said about him,
Scalia’s approach to legal thinking, it is said, was to suss out the founders’ intentions and to resist any changes to the text they produced. To my thinking, this means to exclude any possibility of applying reason because of changes in society or of modernity. Must we be stuck in 1787 forever? I give you Citizens United as a prime example of the fallacy of this thinking. Corporations as people? That’s just nuts.
Now I’m not saying there aren’t universal truths in the original documents that by right are sacrosanct, the First amendment being one shining example. But in another example, AR-15’s are not muskets. Female voter suffrage is another. The founders’ are not gods.
A great mind, no doubt, but that didn’t mean I agreed with him, and I didn’t. Yes, we should never lose sight of the fundamentals the founders addressed, but as you point out, there are societal and technological changes they could never have imagined, and those things must be considered. Citizens United was probably the most wrong-headed decision to come from the court in my lifetime. It has destroyed our election system. Female suffrage, fortunately, was corrected by an amendment, and I hope someday the Second Amendment will itself be amended to acknowledge that we no longer have militias or muskets.
In short, I agree with you.
Thank you for this. We watched the whole two-hour Mass officiated by son Paul. Paul is Grace under fire.
I kept thinking how incredibly difficult that must have been for him. And yet, at least while I was watching, he never faltered.
Never faltered in two hours. Full of Grace. His Homily even gave us a laugh!