Antonin Scalia and the Judicial Branch are Causing a Lot of Concern
The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, and decide on their Constitutionality, a process known as judicial review, an effect of the early Marbury v. Madison decision. Indeed, the entire government of the United States was created based on a simple belief: That no one being or part of government should be dominant over the other. It was therefore a preventative measure that three branches of government were created, each with a distinct set of checks and balances over the other two. Today, it is arguable whether the judiciary has sufficient checks and balances against it. The appointment of judges by the executive, and the advise and consent duties by the legislative branch seem to be tenuous, perhaps even a facade created by the Founding Fathers, in order to quell and appease any opposition to their three-branched government.
Over the decades, it seems that the judiciary has consistently come up with “extreme” decisions, i.e., decisions that are either very liberal or very conservative, and rarely in the middle. While it does seem in their right to do so, it has created an uprising over the last thirty years- as early as the Roe v. Wade decision, and recently in response to the Terry Schiavo rulings, when many were upset that no Court ordered the reinsertion of her feeding tube. Irregardless of public opinion or recent rulings, the judiciary’s responsibility is clear: to act as the final arbiter of a legislative process that has become replete with backroom dealing, and ethically questionable practices. The duty of the judiciary is to rule in a completely unbiased manner- with no predispositions or opinions that might affect the final decision of the Court. All such beliefs are to be excoriated, as it were, from the very being of the Justice- making the job of the Justices to decide each case purely on the basis of its merits.
The job of being a justice, especially one on the Supreme Court, is first and foremost to approach the position with dignity and respect, and again, to rule in an impartial manner. While it may seem that a good majority of Justices do, there is one Justice who does not adhere to these principles. This judge is Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia’s intolerance for the traditions of respect and dignity has set him apart from the others on the Court. His bluntness, while perhaps rooted in honesty, displays his sense of distaste for the judiciary. Whenever Scalia speaks, he does so in an acerbic, caustic manner, alienating many through his incisive remarks. Even his decisions drip with sarcasm. He often refers to the majority decision as “preposterous”, “appalling”, and “ludicrous”. In his dissent of a sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, he wrote that the majority opinion had “signed on to the homosexual agendaâÂ?¦promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium.”
Scalia’s belief is that the Court’s obligation is to rule in the way the Founding Fathers would have. This belief, called originalism, plays itself out in Scalia’s rulings by being the driving force behind his conservative decisions. Those decisions that are made on the basis of originalist theory are obviously relative and completely speculative in regard to what the Founding Fathers would have ruled about any particular case. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and other social issues are decided by originalists like Scalia, simply on the basis of their speculation that the Founding Fathers would have opposed positions that would be in favor of the various cultural evolutions, merely because the Constitution never mentioned them. Scalia vehemently decries those who believe in a “living Constitution”, the belief that the Constitution can deal with current issues and social mores. This belief is consistent with cases like Roe v. Wade, and other social cases.
If there is any concern about the future value of the Court, or at the very least, the legacy of the current Court- a concern that might result in a cautious, compromising judiciary, the current Court has not let it show. To the contrary, they have warmed up to the laid-back attitude of Scalia, often mimicking his volubility and cynicism in their decisions. If there has ever been a time for the judiciary to watch itself, and for the Justices to concern themselves with the dubious future state of the Court, now would be the time. However, the rash acts of the Judiciary belie the necessity which constrains them to moderation. Their all-too-relaxed demeanor, coupled with their smug remarks and decisions are troubling to many, to say the least. Perhaps they are indicative not of a court that views itself with the respect it ought to, but of a court that is very much in trouble, and in need of desperate reform. Regardless, it seems that for now, at least, this runaway judiciary will continue to act in any way it chooses.
