Supreme Court Justice Scalia - Sound Justice, or fascist tool?
May 4th 2008 19:53
"Overcome by unadulterated awe, we, the votaries of perhaps the greatest jurist of our time, have taken wholeheartedly to the net, that he might be more widely known and appreciated." That is the opening paragraph on a site that represents itself as the "Cult of Scalia." He is oft championed by corporate interests and the far right as being a so-called "originalist." There are so many reasons he is anything but, and we will explore those. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia represents something counter to the original intent of the court and the founders. Hiding behind a veil of originalist does not change the fact that he consistently and without reservation comes down on the side of the misguided policies of the far right.
Scalia has been doing the talk circuit lately promoting his new book and he has opened up more than ever before, revealing a deeply misinformed view of what it means to be a court justice and what the Constitution means. First, look at originality. He says that in giving opinions nothing should be added or taken away from the Constitution. That's his justification for the death penalty. The Constitution doesn't forbid it, so it is up to the states. Yet he doesn't support the states who have chosen to allow medicinal use of marijuana. He always supports corporate power, even though the founders were very much against it.
The founders were against corporate power, you ask? Very much so. In fact, they were so anti-corporation that they would only allow corporations to form under very specific circumstances and according to very strict state regulation. Up until the 1890's corporations couldn't be formed that would exist any longer than the perceived working life of a person. That ranged from 20 to 40 years. That was the maximum time life of a corporation. That all changed when the 14th amendment was read by the Supreme Court to not only allow for "equal protection" for people, but for corporations too. The founders did not want an American aristocracy. Did you know, there were no millionaires in America until after the 1890's? I mean in today's dollars, too. What happened when corporations were given wide powers was the beginning of American aristocracy. What we see now with wide wealth disparities and a middle class under attack is a direct result. If Antonin Scalia was indeed an "originalist" he would be very much against corporate power.
By now most people have heard that Scalia, while being interviewed in London, made some interesting remarks about torture. He seems to think that torture cannot be called "cruel and unusual punishment" when it is used to extract information. The logic that a person isn't being "punished" while being tortured is tortured logic indeed. According to Antonin Scalia the Constitution doesn't protect individuals in America from torture. Of course, those of us who are sane know it does. As do the Geneva Conventions and numerous other laws currently being broken by the Bush Administration.
Scalia says concerned Americans should "just get over it" when it comes to Bush v Gore and the Supreme Court decision that awarded the presidency to George Bush. On this subject Scalia just comes right out and lies. First, he claims the vote was 7-2, when in fact it was 5-4. Well, both, actually. The vote to rule the Florida Supreme Court's method of recounting as unconstitutional was 7-2. The more important vote, that said another method of recounting could not be accomplished in a timely manner (and effectively rendered any recount invalid) was 5-4.
He also said that Gore "brought it on himself" by bringing the case. The Gore campaign did file suit in Florida. It was the Bush campaign who took it the the U.S. Supreme Court in order to halt counting. Every unbiased measurement or recount since has shown that if the votes had been correctly counted Al Gore would have won Florida. The court also directed that their ruling not be considered precedent for future cases. In other words they wanted it to be a one-time ruling that couldn't be questioned or rehashed in any way in the future. Below is a copy of the portion of the decision indicating who brought the case.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 00-949
_________________
GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
That's democracy for ya, eh? The United States Supreme Court effectively executed a coup for the presidency of The United States, and Antonin Scalia wants us to "just get over it." Legal scholars are still alarmed not just at the case, but at the fact the court wished to isolate it and keep it as under wraps as possible.
Just as troubling are Scalia's positions on fascism and religion. While it is usually a mistake to equate a person to their father, it is appropriate with Scalia because they both champion the same positions. Scalia's father was an active member of the Italian-American fascist movement and a great admirer of Mussolini. As for religion, Scalia has said that separation of church and state are not always good and that America is supposed to have Christianity in government. Scalia sees an America where God and corporate power are held in far more esteem than individuals or the common good.
Scalia has been doing the talk circuit lately promoting his new book and he has opened up more than ever before, revealing a deeply misinformed view of what it means to be a court justice and what the Constitution means. First, look at originality. He says that in giving opinions nothing should be added or taken away from the Constitution. That's his justification for the death penalty. The Constitution doesn't forbid it, so it is up to the states. Yet he doesn't support the states who have chosen to allow medicinal use of marijuana. He always supports corporate power, even though the founders were very much against it.
The founders were against corporate power, you ask? Very much so. In fact, they were so anti-corporation that they would only allow corporations to form under very specific circumstances and according to very strict state regulation. Up until the 1890's corporations couldn't be formed that would exist any longer than the perceived working life of a person. That ranged from 20 to 40 years. That was the maximum time life of a corporation. That all changed when the 14th amendment was read by the Supreme Court to not only allow for "equal protection" for people, but for corporations too. The founders did not want an American aristocracy. Did you know, there were no millionaires in America until after the 1890's? I mean in today's dollars, too. What happened when corporations were given wide powers was the beginning of American aristocracy. What we see now with wide wealth disparities and a middle class under attack is a direct result. If Antonin Scalia was indeed an "originalist" he would be very much against corporate power.
By now most people have heard that Scalia, while being interviewed in London, made some interesting remarks about torture. He seems to think that torture cannot be called "cruel and unusual punishment" when it is used to extract information. The logic that a person isn't being "punished" while being tortured is tortured logic indeed. According to Antonin Scalia the Constitution doesn't protect individuals in America from torture. Of course, those of us who are sane know it does. As do the Geneva Conventions and numerous other laws currently being broken by the Bush Administration.
Scalia says concerned Americans should "just get over it" when it comes to Bush v Gore and the Supreme Court decision that awarded the presidency to George Bush. On this subject Scalia just comes right out and lies. First, he claims the vote was 7-2, when in fact it was 5-4. Well, both, actually. The vote to rule the Florida Supreme Court's method of recounting as unconstitutional was 7-2. The more important vote, that said another method of recounting could not be accomplished in a timely manner (and effectively rendered any recount invalid) was 5-4.
He also said that Gore "brought it on himself" by bringing the case. The Gore campaign did file suit in Florida. It was the Bush campaign who took it the the U.S. Supreme Court in order to halt counting. Every unbiased measurement or recount since has shown that if the votes had been correctly counted Al Gore would have won Florida. The court also directed that their ruling not be considered precedent for future cases. In other words they wanted it to be a one-time ruling that couldn't be questioned or rehashed in any way in the future. Below is a copy of the portion of the decision indicating who brought the case.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 00-949
_________________
GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
That's democracy for ya, eh? The United States Supreme Court effectively executed a coup for the presidency of The United States, and Antonin Scalia wants us to "just get over it." Legal scholars are still alarmed not just at the case, but at the fact the court wished to isolate it and keep it as under wraps as possible.
Just as troubling are Scalia's positions on fascism and religion. While it is usually a mistake to equate a person to their father, it is appropriate with Scalia because they both champion the same positions. Scalia's father was an active member of the Italian-American fascist movement and a great admirer of Mussolini. As for religion, Scalia has said that separation of church and state are not always good and that America is supposed to have Christianity in government. Scalia sees an America where God and corporate power are held in far more esteem than individuals or the common good.
| 56 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
What a different world we would be living in, if only...