I was tempted to start out this post with a string of curse words aimed at Justice Antonin Scalia this morning. I really don’t want this blog finding its way into any nanny filters, so I’ll skip the profanity and go to the causes thereof:
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court
and
In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court’s 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on “evolving notions of decency” was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.
Why is it that people are perfectly willing to point to other people’s personal feelings when they disagree with them, yet remain oblivious to the fact that they too are motivated by feelings? Obviously this is a subject the esteemed Justice feels strongly about, so much so that he’s gone to the trouble of making a speech about it. I think it is fair to assume he actually has feelings on the subject. Why is it OK for him to be motivated by his feelings but not other people?
And what exactly is wrong with using an “evolving standard of decency” as part of the decision-making process, anyway? As much as Scalia would like to pretend that this is still the 1700s, times have changed since the Constitution was written. It was an evolving standard of decency which removed the odious practice of counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person, for example. It was an evolving standard of dececy which gave women the right to vote. True, it was also an evolving standard of decency which kicked off Prohibition, but that mistake was pretty quickly rectified.
In short, I think Scalia is full of crap.