Calling On Scalia to Quit
Now on the Commonweal site, E.J. Dionne Jr.’s column on why it’s time for Antonin Scalia to step down.
He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.
So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line. …
[H]e is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.
Read the whole thing right here.
Dionne’s is one among a rising number of voices. The Washington Post says Scalia has discredited the court; Richard Posner, writing in Slate, thinks his comments on President Obama’s immigration decision will show up in campaign ads; and University of California law professor Gabriel J. Chin (quoted in the New York Times) says that the justice has “jumped the shark.”
Scalia’s default response to critiques of his reasoning, character, taste in opera, choice of duck-hunting partners — anything, really — is the scoff, and he’s probably issued several times his quota in the last 36 hours. But now that the court has finished its term by upholding the health care law (Scalia — wait for it — dissenting), maybe the justice has time to ponder the possible career moves Dionne suggests. Politician? Pundit? Trusted consultant to Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio? What would you propose for Scalia post-SCOTUS?
It seems to me that Scalia’s cantankerous rants have accelerated since that young, newly appointed (2005), whippersnapper, Roberts, was appointed Chief Justice over him. After all, he had seniority having been appointed by Reagan in 1986.
That’s teh sharpest call I’ve seen. Any good history to share on resignations (other than Fortas) that would be relevant?
Ok. Put a Republican in the White House and give Republicans control of the Senate, and then he may take you up on it.
Robert’s up holding ACA was seen as a mystery. Not so..He, unlike Scalia, did not want the SC to be seen for a generation as a bunch of partisan hacks.
He’d be great in a policy think-tank. Agree or disagree with him (I usually disagree,) he’s a smart guy.
It’d be great to re-unite Scalia & Obama on the Univ of Chicago Law School faculty!
Justice Scalia should remain on the Court for as long as he wishes. He has been a great justice and is a fine example for Catholics to emulate.
I agree with Jeff Landry. Scalia would be a great law professor where he would be one among a range of opinionated academics. And it would be great for Obama to join him there eventually, maybe as President of U. Chicago.
“What would you propose for Scalia post-SCOTUS?”
Do what all Catholic guys do on retirement, become active in the Knights of Columbus or the International Order of the Alhambra. He’s got leadership qualities, he could be on the Supreme Council of the K of C or the Alhambra’s Council of Viziers.
“What would you propose for Scalia post-SCOTUS?”
A Catholic funeral and burial, of course.
I’m sure Scalia will give this column all the heed it deserves.
Jim Paulwels;
Besides being delighted with the Supreme Court decision today, I had the best laugh of the day.
“What would you propose for Scalia post-SCOTUS?”
A Catholic funeral and burial, of course.
“Justice Scalia — has been a great justice and is a fine example for Catholics to emulate.”
Thanks for bringing a big dose of humor to what could be a cantankerous discussion.
I propose a new nickname for him: Big Tony the Scab Scalia.
“Do what all Catholic guys do on retirement, become active in the Knights of Columbus or the International Order of the Alhambra. He’s got leadership qualities, he could be on the Supreme Council of the K of C or the Alhambra’s Council of Viziers.”
And eventually he could replace Carl Anderson once he is made a cardinal and given control of the reintroduced sale of indulgences. The Vatican Bank needs the money.
He has been a great justice and is a fine example for Catholics to emulate.
Thorin,
Scalia insists that his Catholicism has absolutely no influence on his jurisprudence. So the the extent we see Scalia in his capacity as a Supreme Court justice, I don’t know what is there for Catholics to emulate.
If Scalia resigns, I think he should replace Bill Donohue at the Catholic League.
…and I mean this in the sense of fraternal correction: E.J. Dionne in general, and this gratuitous effort in particular, is beneath your magazine. Why put McDonald’s on the menu when we’ve become accustomed to kobe beef?
I wonder if doCommonwealers agreed with Scalia if they might not be calling him a prophet like John the Baptist. And I can’t recall what occurred in these precincts, but when President Obama excoriated the justices for the decision in Citizens United, was there any criticism of the POTUS not respecting the separation of powers? Again, I fear we heard the sound of crickets in these parts
Anthony Andreass:
Excuse me:
The justices are NOT supposed to be political; We expect the executive branch to be. That is what we mean by the separation of church and state.
I am not sure how the president berating the justices is like the separation of church and state but maybe you have a finer legal mind than I
Go to India, help the Missionaries of Charity feed and bathe lepers, and never be heard from again.
Justice Scalia “a fine example for Catholics to emulate”?
Justice Scalia and the other Catholic justices on the Supreme Court rejected an appeal of a death row inmate on technicalities. There were previous Court decisions that allowed such appeals. If there was a moment to apply Catholic teaching that the death penalty should be rare in modern society, they had that opportunity. But the issue of standing was more important to the Justices than mercy. They went out of their way to reject the appeal.
Where was the outcry from Bishops that have berated other people in government?
What about dean of the Ave Maria Law School or the head of the Beckett Fund?
Angela,
When he goes to help the lepers in India with the Missionaries of Charity, is it ok if he speaks out against abortion as Mother Theresa so strenuously did also? Just wondering?
A
Maybe Big Tony can replace Carl Anderson in Rome who then can be made a cardinal in charge of selling indulgences – again.
The Vatican Bank needs the money, you know.
To Anthony Andreass:
Alan Dershowitz, a respectable commentator on matters of the law and courts, points out that Scalia often claims that the Constitution is a “dead” document, and should be interpreted according to what the words meant when the document was adopted. Of course, Scalia conveniently forgot this ideology with Bush vs. Gore. And Scalia’s 18th century view of the Const. happens to coincide with Scalia’s 18th century view of the world. He identifies himself as a Catholic, but publicly repudiates church teaching on the death penalty (calls it “the latest hot-off-the-presses version of the catechism”). Scalia plays cards with lawyers who are arguing cases before the Court and even went hunting with Dick Cheney when the vice president was a defendant in a case before the Court. Dershowitz concludes: “His views of when Catholic doctrine is binding, like his views of when Constitutional doctrine is binding, generally coincide precisely with his personal and political views.” Perhaps the nation would be better off if Justice Scalia were to retire to his card games for good.
Anthony Andreass:
Only a hermit would not already be aware of Scalia’s position on abortion.
Regarding Scalia’s vituperative opinions: it turns out that the tone of his opinions is a bit of a bellwether. The following is from a Sean Trende piece that was published on Wednesday, the eve of the announcement of the health care ruling. The piece itself is one of a host of pundit prognistications that were flat-out wrong, but the portion I’m quoting here may be of interest. This is from the section of the piece in which he is enumerating reasons that the bill might actually be allowed to stand.
“Second, Justice Scalia’s dissent in the immigration case caught my attention. In 2000, a co-worker of mine who had clerked for Scalia pointed to this gratuitous concurrence in NFTC v. Crosby as a sign of future losses for conservatives. Sure enough, bad losses followed in the partial-birth abortion decision and a major school prayer case.
“Since then, I have noticed that Scalia’s opinions do, in fact, become more caustic when things aren’t going well for conservatives. So it seems noteworthy that his scathing dissent in Arizona v. United States dwelled at length on the erosion of state sovereignty, which is really at the core of the conservative argument against the individual mandate. Is this a sign of his frustration with the way things are going on the health care law?”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/27/why_the_whole_health_care_law_is_in_jeopardy_114626-2.html
Jim–
You may be on to something there. Could be his Italian temper.
Mr Pincher:
I agree that Scalia “publicly repudiates church teaching on the death penalty,” and like you, find this troubling to say the least. So in the same vein, I would guess you are also very troubled by Catholic politicians who support unrestricted abortion rights and even the use of public monies to pay for these. I just want to be clear on this.
A
Anthony Andreass:
I agree. Catholic politicians who support unrestricted abortion rights are wrong. I oppose the use of public monies for these.
Also, you might find this interesting. Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR all publicly berated the supreme court. In fact, Lincoln said that he would not enforce the court’s Dred Scott decision upholding slavery in U.S. territories.
In the end, Scalia is not a wise person, he is not a “Senex”, which is what the nation and the church desperately need right now. Until such figures emerge and are respected, the people of America and the church will suffer under leaders who are emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually immature.
BP
BP-
Would you propose some people who could be described as being “senex”?
Don’t mean to sidetrack the conversation, but is it official Church teaching that the death penalty should be rare, or did that come (only) from JP II?
AA:
Cardinal Schonborn, Joan Chittister, Richard Rohr, Bill Plotkin, Diarmuid Martin, Desond Tutu, Rowan Williams, Stephen Bauman, Margaret Farley, Dorothy Day… Note some common characteristics – compassionate, merciful, grounded in reality, no need to divide the world into us vs. them.
@Mark, JPII didn’t substantively change the traditional teaching on the death penalty, in my reading. Rather, he said that in contemporary societies, the protection of the public can be achieved with means short of killing of the prisoner. In a sense, he read the circumstances as (usually) not consistent with needing to kill. So he thought capital punishment should be rare, because of other means available now. In essence, what he did was to make a prudential judgment about circumstances. I think it’s a very good use of the tradition.
I hope Antonin Scalia and his son Paul, an Opus Dei priest, will respond to Dionne.
Lisa – I agree 100% with your reading.
Lisa–
That’s interesting. If it’s JP II’s prudential judgment, it’s certainly due great deference, but I think we’re each allowed, even bound, to make our own prudential judgment.
@Mark, Yes, I agree,we are bound to make our own prudential judgment in light of well-formed Christian conscience that pays due respect to magisterial teaching. Ultimately, we’re each responsible to God for the decisions of conscience that we make. Prudence (and the other relevant moral virtues–justice, here) is the virtue by which conscience discerns, and which is strengthened by good discernments. Myself, I’m resolutely anti-death-penalty, but recognize that in some circumstances (which are very rare in the modern world) it is justifiable. It’s still not good–like just war, it’s a concession to hard realities–but sometimes justifiable. But even then we have to take into account the risk of killing innocents, the hardening of society’s “heart” by seeing killing as a response to violence, inequities in administering, etc. etc. Like just war, and like killing an unjust assailant, it can be justified as a last resort for proportionate cause. (And other relevant criteria.)
I have never heard of “senex” and am willing to admit it. So ….
“Wise old man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The wise old man (also called senex, sage or sophos) is an archetype as described by Carl Jung, as well as a classic literary figure, and may be seen as a stock character. The wise old man can be a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.”
I doubt my name will be added to the list.
” @Mark, Yes, I agree,we are bound to make our own prudential judgment in light of well-formed Christian conscience that pays due respect to magisterial teaching. ”
Does listening to Limbaugh, Wild Bill Donahue, Sirico, Fr Z, Beck, Big Tony the Scab and O’Reilly count?
Lisa–I am in substantial agreement with that.
Jim McCrea–It’s a good start!
Scalia has become an embarrassment. Either he should resign on his hefty pension, or he should be removed.