SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Christopher Scalia: Lessons from the Kavanaugh chaos -- What my father, Justice Antonin Scalia, would have thought

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Christopher Scalia: Lessons from the Kavanaugh chaos -- What my father, Justice Antonin Scalia, would have thought Login/Join 
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted
I’ve frequently been asked in the past few weeks what my father, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, would think about the contentious battle just waged over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the nation’s highest court.

Would he have been surprised by the heated debate, political maneuvers, protests, last-minute delays and uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct that we saw during now-Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process?

Although I don’t think my father (or anyone) could have predicted the twists and turns of the past several weeks, I don’t think he would have been shocked by the no-holds-barred fight over a Supreme Court vacancy, either. He long ago warned Americans about the excessive intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process. And he explained that a large share of the blame belongs to the justices themselves.

My father believed that a major reason the judicial confirmation process has become so heated is that federal judges too often exceed the role envisioned by our nation’s founders and usurp the power of elected representatives.

Alexander Hamilton famously argued “that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” and that “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from” the judicial branch.

But Hamilton qualified that claim. He said it would only be true as long as “the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.” Hamilton agreed with the French political philosopher Montesquieu, who warned that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”

Maintaining that separation means limiting the role of judges. My father explained that for most of American history, Supreme Court justices recognized that the meaning of legal texts – including the Constitution – did not change.

Judges understood that their job was to interpret that original meaning – referring to tradition, history and precedent when necessary. When dealing with laws and statutes, this approach is known as textualism; in reference to the Constitution, it is called originalism.

But over the course of 20th century, judges began to think of the Constitution as a “living document” whose meaning changed with the times. That may seem like a reasonable idea at first; after all, the Constitution was written in 1787 and a nation’s interests and priorities can change dramatically over generations.

Shouldn’t the Constitution keep up with the times?

But in fact, the Constitution establishes democratic processes, both in the states and in Congress, with the flexibility necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. This can happen through new laws and through constitutional amendments. That is, for example, how women earned the right to vote: not by judicial decree, but through the 19th Amendment.

On the other hand, if the Constitution is a living document, consider who ends up determining its new meaning: unelected judges with lifetime appointments – men and women who are intentionally protected from the will of voters at the ballot box.

As a result, many debates and compromises that should have occurred in the political realm have been short-circuited by the judicial branch for decades.

The most notorious example of this is Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision discovering a constitutional right to abortion. The justices believed they were settling a contentious national issue. But they were doing nothing of the sort; they were inflaming it.

When Americans realized that lower court judges and Supreme Court justices were exercising their will rather than just their judgement, judicial nominations became much more heated. My father didn’t like this change, but he understood why it happened.

“A freedom-loving people respectful of the rule of law may be expected to let lawyers decide what a constitutional text means; but they cannot be expected to let lawyers decide what a Constitution ought to say,” my father said.

Or as he put it in another speech, “no court can expect to remain immune from severe political pressure ... if it assumes the role of inventing solutions for social problems instead of merely applying those solutions prescribed in democratically adopted statutory or constitutional text.”

After all, lawyers know the law better than the rest of us, but their value judgments are not necessarily superior to anyone else’s.

One way to help make our judicial confirmation battles less polarizing, then, would be for judges to return to the more limited role they had held for most of our nation’s history: applying laws and statutes according to their text and interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning, using history, tradition and precedent as guides.

This wouldn’t make every Supreme Court decision unanimous. Judges can interpret history and tradition differently, and sometimes the meaning of a text is ambiguous. Nor does it mean courts would never again make a controversial ruling.

But if federal judges returned to the more modest approach our Founding Fathers envisioned for them, they would be less likely to rule according to their preferred policy preferences and more likely to leave political decisions to our elected representatives.

This change in perspective is long overdue, but it will not happen overnight. Right now, it is primarily only Republicans who see the value in originalist judges like Brett Kavanaugh – and we saw the lengths to which Democrats fought his confirmation.

My father devoted considerable time to delivering speeches across the country and around the world explaining the advantages of originalism and textualism. He knew that persuading people to this way of thinking would help return the judicial branch to its proper status as what Hamilton famously called “the least dangerous branch” and help subdue the intensity of the nomination process.

Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
Amen, brother.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 46662 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Conservative Behind
Enemy Lines
Picture of synthplayer
posted Hide Post
quote:
My father believed that a major reason the judicial confirmation process has become so heated is that federal judges too often exceed the role envisioned by our nation’s founders and usurp the power of elected representatives.


Word.



According to Leftists: If your DNA test shows you are 1/1024 Native American, you ARE a Native American, but if you have two X chromosomes, we're not sure if you're a woman or a man.
 
Posts: 9546 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: June 06, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of konata88
posted Hide Post
This should be agreeable to reasonable people on both sides of the fence.

But how to fix?




"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B.Franklin
"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy
 
Posts: 7694 | Location: In the gilded cage | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by konata88:
This should be agreeable to reasonable people on both sides of the fence...

The other side of the fence appears vacant.



.
 
Posts: 5922 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The left has used the judiciary to promote many things they could not get passed at the ballot box.Abortion and homosexual marriage come to mind. The voters of California even rejected it when it was on the ballot.


______________________________________________________________________________
You can only go so far in any one direction before you eventually drive off a cliff
 
Posts: 6818 | Registered: January 17, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You don’t fix faith,
River. It fixes you.

Picture of Yanert98
posted Hide Post
He makes a great point. And I believe he's absolutely correct.


----------------------------------
“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny
can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses
it with feeling.” - Thomas Sowell
 
Posts: 2358 | Location: Migrating with the Seasons | Registered: September 26, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wcb6092:
The left has used the judiciary to promote many things they could not get passed at the ballot box.Abortion and homosexual marriage come to mind. The voters of California even rejected it when it was on the ballot.


“Promote” is one thing. “Require” is more like it and wholely incompatible with freedom, liberty and limited Government.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Shaql
posted Hide Post
quote:
The most notorious example of this is Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision discovering a constitutional right to abortion.


I always get caught up in this language. We always say that the constitution does not provide rights, but limits government right?

So how is it so often we find people who mince this language? Don't the first 10 amendments only provide examples of liberties that are available to them?





Hedley Lamarr: Wait, wait, wait. I'm unarmed.
Bart: Alright, we'll settle this like men, with our fists.
Hedley Lamarr: Sorry, I just remembered . . . I am armed.
 
Posts: 5500 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: April 23, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I like to think of the constitution as similar to a contract among citizens of how the government is to be run. As such, as is the case in contract law, the meaning of such is based on the words and what those words meant by those drafting them.

There is no such thing as a living contract. If a situation is not covered or situations change, the contract is modified by the parties that entered into the contract.

The Constitution has a process for modifying the terms of the contract among the citizens; it is the amendment process.
 
Posts: 94 | Registered: April 19, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bwl5:
I like to think of the constitution as similar to a contract among citizens of how the government is to be run. As such, as is the case in contract law, the meaning of such is based on the words and what those words meant by those drafting them.

There is no such thing as a living contract. If a situation is not covered or situations change, the contract is modified by the parties that entered into the contract.

The Constitution has a process for modifying the terms of the contract among the citizens; it is the amendment process.


True believers realize that passing a statute might not enshrine their passion in a permanent change so they go for a Constitutional Amendmendment if possible, harder to pull off, but nearly impossible to reverse.

Like Prohibition.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
From the OP: ‘But over the course of 20th century, judges began to think of the Constitution as a “living document” ‘

By which they really mean “dead document”, which they want to bury.




Note to self: Don’t clutter threads with gratuitous posts.
 
Posts: 3766 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Christopher Scalia: Lessons from the Kavanaugh chaos -- What my father, Justice Antonin Scalia, would have thought

© SIGforum 2018