"Undermining my electoral viability since 2001."

Scalia (with paranthetical insertions)

Flipping along tonight past Cspan-2 -- where a bunch of Democratic insiders are talking about the primary schedule (ugh) -- onto the flagship and theres Tony (Antonin) talking before some foundation. He's a good talker and clearly quite smart. I actually think there are some things he says which might be applicable in ways he would completely detest.

For instance, he talks about how the limited right to abortion or the right to engage on sodomy should be legislated and not left to the court. He's right, of course, in terms of ending these debates. We should take that to heart. There's pressure on Bush now to push a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. but he won't do it. However, when the time comes -- in 10 or 20 years -- we should do the opposite. Because it would work at that point, barring facism or something.

At the same time, his argumentation is full of holes and contradictions. For instance, talking on and on about how the Supreme Court has become politicized because of the notion of a "living constitution," how that's driven questions of "majority rule" and extending what the constitution means and made confirmation battles in the Senate so rancorous. Then he cites the SCOTUS decision not to consider the question of a right to die as an example of how... the constitution is being extended beyond its meaning?

And then, after ending on a note about how the living constitution is a threat to the protection against majority rule, not five minutes later he says again that when it comes to questions about homosexuality and abortion that the ballot box exists to advance these issues. Which is, essentially, majority rule. Nice.

But he sounds very believable when he says these things. They're logically inconsistant, but he's nimble on his feet and never gets flustred. So you can see why these people love him.

Tags: 

Responses