March 2, 2016 7:57 AM

Antonin Scalia: What a legacy of disrespect, self-righteousness, and dismissive self-superiority looks like

[Scalia’s] own weapon was the poison-barbed word, and the battleground was what he once labeled the Kulturkampf, the culture war. The enemy took many forms. Women’s rights. Racial justice. Economic equality. Environmental protection. The “homosexual agenda,” as he called it. Intellectuals and universities. The questioning of authority and privilege. Ambiguity. Foreignness. Social change. Climate research. The modern world, in all its beauty and complexity and fragility. Most of all, the enemy was to be found in judges who believe decency and compassion are central to their jobs, not weaknesses to be extinguished. Who refuse to dehumanize people and treat them as pawns in some Manichean struggle of good versus evil, us versus them. Who decline to make their intelligence and verbal gifts into instruments of cruelty and persecution and infinite scorn…. What I took for the pursuit of reason in those chambers was in fact the manufacture of verbal munitions, to be deployed against civilian populations. From the comfort of our leather chairs, we never saw the victims.

In an ideal world, Supreme Court Justices are impartial, nonpartisan arbiters of the law. They rule on matters concerning the rule of law without defaulting to their own ideology, religion, and/or prejudice. They don’t view it as their mission in life to force their narrow moral universe on those whose only crime lies in having the temerity not to believe as they “should.”

I realize we in no way live in an ideal world and that a justice’s ideology, theology, and/or philosophy of jurisprudence and life are difficult (in Antonin Scalia’s case impossible) to set aside completely. We’re all a product of our environment and upbringing, things that may very well continue to weigh heavily on a jurist as they attempt to formulate a dispassionate position on a matter of law.

Justice Scalia is no longer able to defend himself, which should hardly matter since his legacy is indefensible. A virulent homophobe and veteran culture warrior, Scalia was accustomed to opprobrium and disdain being directed at him for his vile, dismissive inhumanity. Not only did he not care about how his actions or words impacted others, when given the opportunity to clarify and/or soften his harsh rhetoric he very often doubled down. Kind, gentle, and respectful aren’t descriptors likely to ever be associated with him.

His own weapon was the poison-barbed word, and the battleground was what he once labeled the Kulturkampf, the culture war. The enemy took many forms. Women’s rights. Racial justice. Economic equality. Environmental protection. The “homosexual agenda,” as he called it. Intellectuals and universities. The questioning of authority and privilege. Ambiguity. Foreignness. Social change. Climate research. The modern world, in all its beauty and complexity and fragility.

Most of all, the enemy was to be found in judges who believe decency and compassion are central to their jobs, not weaknesses to be extinguished. Who refuse to dehumanize people and treat them as pawns in some Manichean struggle of good versus evil, us versus them. Who decline to make their intelligence and verbal gifts into instruments of cruelty and persecution and infinite scorn…. [His bequest to history includes an] inhumanity that survives as his true legacy, safeguarded by deluded acolytes and admirers.

Scalia passed away in his sleep at a luxurious hunting lodge. He died as he lived, gun at hand, dreaming of killing helpless prey from a position of safety and comfort. May his successor on the Court have a loftier vision of law, and of life.

It saddens me that I’m reduced to discussing the legacy of a man whose public words and actions held so little redeeming value and caused so much pain to so many. I have no idea what Antonin Scalia the private person was like, nor do I have any intention of addressing that. My concern, as with my knowledge of his body of work, is limited to his theory and philosophy of jurisprudence. Scalia never believed that the rule of law existed for the benefit of all. His words and votes paint the picture of deeply prejudiced, intensely homophobic, and stridently intolerant justice who rejected the notion that his job- interpreting the law- should be a dispassionate and nonpartisan undertaking.

We should be able to hope that Scalia’s replacement will be a person of integrity, compassion, and respect for humanity in all its varied forms. If nothing else, such a person will stand in stark contrast to a man who believed that some human beings were more worthy of protections afforded under the law and that some deserved to be treated and regarded as second class citizens simply because of who they are.

Antonin Scalia’s career on the Supreme Court will not be remembered for making a positive impact. He leaves behind a legacy of contentiousness, anger, intolerance, and disrespect rivalled by few in American public life. Hopefully, history will treat him as the intellectual, moral, and legal lightweight he spent 30 years proving himself to be. He will no doubt be missed by family and friends…but America will be a better place his absence on the bench.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on March 2, 2016 7:57 AM.

If a lame duck President can't nominate a Supreme Court justice...fair is fair, right? was the previous entry in this blog.

One of the biggest reasons I support Bernie Sanders is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 6.0.8