Cool Breeze

It is now more than a week since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia scandalized much of the nation with his observation that the continuation of the V****g Rights Act may constitute the “perpetuation of a racial entitlement.” The words in and of themselves were deeply offensive. What we don’t know, of course, is whether Scalia truly believes them.

The Justice clearly takes pleasure in controversy. It may be that his language was designed merely to tweak the noses of his liberal colleagues, to challenge received wisdom, even to suggest a course of argument to the advocates appearing before him. This wouldn’t be the first time that a Supreme Court Justice used provocation to nudge legal argument in a particular direction.

Since it is impossible to see into any person’s head or heart, the beliefs that lie behind Scalia’s words will not be known until the Court makes a decision and he puts his official opinion on paper. Supreme Court Justices, far more than most public officials, must express and defend their thinking, not simply out loud on the spur of the moment, but on the record. The words they write not only determine the way the law is interpreted and applied, they reveal the character and purposes of the Justices themselves.

If you read any of the many opinions Scalia has written during his years on the Court, it won’t take you very long to draw several conclusions about his character and purposes:

First, there is no doubt that Antonin Scalia is cleverly articulate. As compared with his colleagues on the Court, particularly the other conservatives, his prose crackles with wit and sarcasm, with verbal thrust and parry. Even if you don’t agree with the man, you cannot deny that he is a “good read.”

Second, and less charmingly, you will quickly see that his arrogance is limitless. More than any other Justice on the Court, he dedicates his opinions to the disparagement of those who disagree with him. In our adversarial legal system, this is to some extent unavoidable. Legal decisions are verbal and logical “victories,” the direct result of one argument defeating another. Any Justice who writes an opinion must dispose of opposing arguments methodically.

But Scalia’s treatment of opposing arguments is more than methodical. It is savage, and the language he uses can be personal and dismissive. When he disagrees with an argument, he isn’t content to lay out the legal flaws as he see them; he often characterizes the argument as foolish and those who uphold it as intellectually ridiculous. And he does all this with obvious and unseemly glee. Reading his words is like listening to a precocious ten- year-old who is convinced (and desperately wants to convince you) that he is the smartest kid in the class and everyone else is a dummy.

More damning still, Scalia’s own arguments are routinely duplicitous and dishonest. He claims to be an “originalist,” who believes that the Constitution must be interpreted according to the intentions of the Founders. But the Founders lived more than two centuries ago, and their “original intentions” are murkier than Scalia would like us to believe. Even when their intentions are clear, he is perfectly capable of “creatively” rewriting history to recast them as he wishes.

Scalia’s duplicity goes beyond an inventive approach to history. He is a master of twisting both logic and language to justify decisions that have little basis in law, precedent, or original intent. Perhaps the most notorious example is the majority opinion he wrote several years ago in the Heller case, which significantly altered the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The Amendment states:

“A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This brief and seemingly clear sentence begins with a participial clause. The ancient Romans, whose written works inspired and guided the Founders, called this an “ablative absolute.” In both grammar and logic, such a clause defines or limits the clause that follows. In this sentence, it is the need for a well regulated m*****a that defines, and limits, the right to bear arms. That is what the Supreme Court ruled in 1939 and continued to rule for the next seventy years.

(Of course, a rational person might argue that the “ablative absolute” in the Second Amendment became an anachronism long ago. A well regulated m*****a being no longer even remotely necessary—that’s another participial clause, by the way—the right to keep and bear arms is, at the very least, highly questionable. But put that aside.)

To overturn the long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment, Justice Scalia cooked up a new grammatical concept, which he called a “prefatory clause” and distinguished from an “operative clause.” If the Amendment’s first words were in fact an “operative clause,” they would indeed limit the right to own guns. But according to Scalia, these words are merely “prefatory,” a bit of flowery but irrelevant language serving no logical purpose. Scalia based this claim on the appearance of a second comma in the Second Amendment, the one that stands between the words “arms” and “shall.” Remove that comma and you cannot plausibly deny the limiting reality of the Amendment’s opening clause. Reinstate the comma and—voila!—according to Scalia, that clause becomes merel “prefatory.”

There are countless problems with this verbal sleight of hand, which Scalia was, and is, smart enough to realize. The main one is that the text of the Constitution is far from precise. There are several versions, in which the commas come and go. Which version reveals the “original” intentions of the Founders? Another is the plain sense of the language itself, which does not hinge on punctuation. Take all the commas out and you still have to confront the words as they were written.

As I said, we will not know what Antonin Scalia really thinks about the V****g Rights Act until, or unless, he chooses to write an opinion. But I think we can guess. The scandal of Antonin Scalia isn’t confined to the offensive language he uttered from the bench. The scandal is that such a man is even allowed to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land. I have to agree with this assessment with this addition. Thomas has to be the worst Toady who has ever been nominated to the Supreme Court. http://gracchusdixit.com/2013/03/07/the-scandal-of-scalia/

Loki Loc: Georgia

That is a cry of unrequited jealousy. I am not surprised that a second string ghetto possum/hood rat such as yourself would think it erudite.
Tell me something, Jamal, what would this country look like if it were run by half-assed radical b****s such as yourself? How about your hero Kanye? Black Lives certainly mattered to him. They were his source of income while he sold them crack for years before his recording contract. A possum who thinks himself an authority on anything. Right.
This country, run by your heroes, would degenerate into a third world hellhole. Name one country run by b****s left to their own devices that has ever been anything else. You would have a poverty stricken wart on the earth, a feudalistic society run by a privileged few while the rest of you picked cotton and ate each other. You want to live in a black run country? How about Jamaica? They have a nice, Liberal government. Violent crime is completely out of control. Their per capita murder rate is ten times as high as ours. How about Haiti? How about what was once the most prosperous nation in Africa, Rhodesia? In less than 20 years after it became black ruled Zimbabwe, it became an economic, social and political basket case.

Your "white privilege" blame game is bulls**t. There is not one black run country in the world that is not either a third world cesspool, or teetering on the edge of becoming one.
You blame your predicament on everyone but yourselves. That is why you are in it. You demand handouts and entitlements as your due, and then blame w****s for acquiescing to your demands, claiming that your initiative is being stifled. Yet when those entitlements stop, it's Raaaaaaciiiiiiiiist!
You are a moron.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bad choice of a post, given Scalia was found dead........of "natural causes". May he rest in peace. One of the last constitutionalists in America, God help America. The political left will d**g her through the mud unless Thomas steps up and defends the US Constitution now as much as Scalia did.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The "race card" is still in the deck and still being played.

rebob14

It's all over now, baby blue!!!!!

Cool Breeze

Is the baby upset because because his delicate r****t diseased digestive system cannot process the t***h? Does the baby tummy hurt? Let me assist you in your distress although there is cure for diarrhea of the mouth. I'll make it short and sweet. There is a certain group in America that will acknowledge or take responsibility for its evil. You are a member of this distinguished club although your job is to sit on your ass while eating Bom Boms while you spew your bile. Cleanse your septic tank brain before its too late.

Cool Breeze

Stop marking the cards and stacking the deck.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Ungowa!

Cool Breeze

Have you noticed that this thread isn't about white privilege. Therefore take your hankie and blow your snotty nose brat! Lol

Loki Loc: Georgia

It won't change the fact that you are an i***t, who thinks that men like Clarence Thomas are toadies defending some imaginary white privilege, while you idolize half-assed race-baiters like yourself who blame all of their shortcomings on the evil white man. Go suck your boyfriend's chancres.

Cool Breeze

WOW! I wonder who revealed that fact to you? Whoever it was did a good job. Please keep your boyfriend out of this conversation. Its very unbecoming.

Kevyn

The Bahamas has been run by b****s for quite a while and is a beautiful successful nation. Your r****m is only exceeded by your abject ignorance.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

Kook frezz ,, jump up and down , pull your hair out , you can post this crap because I and millons more protect you , so F--K off !!

Loki Loc: Georgia

I have spent a LOT of time in the Bahamas, dipstick. Not in some tourist trap, either. I lived there for most of a year. There is plenty of poverty to go around. Most of their economy is based on tourism (60% ) and offshore banking (15% ). Their per capita murder rate is 30 per 100,000, as opposed to ours, which is 4 per 100,000. As a British Commonwealth country, their sovereign is whoever sits on the British Throne, represented by a governor general.
The Bahamas are supposedly an independent country, yet their leader is the British monarch, and their governor is appointed by the British Throne, and serves at the pleasure of the Queen of England.
Maybe you think a country whose leaders are installed and removed at the pleasure of the lily white Queen of England is black run. Get your facts straight, s**tstain, before you accuse someone else of ignorance.

Cool Breeze

SILENCE!