Paul,Scalia uses originalism until he doesn't. Will he argue that the founders were opposed to the use of mandatory insurance when they did just that for maritime employees?

4 readers like this

Paul, I don't claim that Scalia is demented or senile. However, it is a fact that everyone's mental flexibility declines with age. We get "set in our ways" (as I'm learning at age 66) and I don't think that makes for the best decisions.

Moreover, Supreme Court justices are the closest things to monarchs within our constitution. They can ascend to office at any age -- it would be perfectly constitutional for the president to appoint and the Senate to confirm a 12-year-old kid as Justice -- and like kings and queens, they serve until they die, unless they themselves make the decision to retire.

And they are nearly absolute in their power. Only impeachment, which is nearly impossible to achieve, and the constitution, which they interpret for themselves, stand between the justices and absolute monarchy.

So, yes, liberal or conservative, brilliant or dumb as a post, the Supreme Court justices need some limits on their tenure.

Scalia is a disgrace. He attends fundraisers for the right wing organizations opposing the ACA, spitting on any pretense of judicial temperament, neutrality, or objectivity. He makes public speeches that are partisan and biting in their attacks on political opponents. He has even on one occasion publicly made obscene gestures and in Italian told people demonstrating to " va fa in culo" a version of" go get f---ked." His performance today of using the court as a forum for an incoherent rant against the President was over the top and certainly beyond any standard of judicial temperament or court decorum, or separation of powers. His decisions today of railing in favor of state's rights and then stomping on them in favor of the rights of corporations as if they were persons in the name of free speech, and free speech as if money is the same as speech, is not only inconsistent but also unprincipled. He speaks about a standard of upholding precedent and then tosses it with easy abandon. Scalia is a disgrace to the judiciary, for his extreme partisanship, for his disrespect for the presidency, for his arrogance in using the court to advance radical political aims, and his personal boorishness. And with age it is getting worse.

He should receive a neuropsych evaluation as should all justices past a certain age. And I agree that justices should not be treated like monarchs with indefinite terms, hiding behind a quasi royal deference that they are not worthy of, and destroying the legitimacy of an institution that our democracy needs.

"My impression is that Scalia is widely admired for his wit, writing style, and fierce commitment to originalism."

I don't know who started this about Scalia, but is the most often-repeated piece of nonsense I hear. It usually comes in the form of, "I don't agree with Scalia on many things, but I do have to recognize his wit and writing ability." Mr. Gronke inexplicably added "fierce commitment to originalism" which I would agree with except for those instances when he is not.

I wonder how many of the people who praise Scalia for his wit or his writing have actually read any of his opinions, or more enlightening, his dissents. I have read many of his opinions and don't find them to be at all witty or thought-provoking. What stands out about his opinions is the level of disprespect he shows his peers on the bench. Scalia is alone in his willingness to belittle and mock his peers when they disagree with him. It is unprofessional, unneccessary, and beneath the Court.

People are criticizing Scalia for taking seemingly inconsistent positions in the Arizona and Montana cases. That's nothing! He often takes completely differing positions in the same case without ever recognizing or reconciling those differences. Great intellect, indeed.

Scalia is a political hack short and simple. He gets recognition because he is full of personality in a place that is usually quite short in that department (which many consider a good thing). But that abundance of personality should not be mistaken for wit, intellect, or writing ability. Just my two cents.

2 readers like this

I'd be okay with a lifetime tenure for federal district and circuit court judges. Perhaps the Supreme Court should be made up of judges tapped from the various federal Circuit Courts. Individual Circuit judges could be temporarily elevated to a single 12-year or 15-year term on the Supreme Court, and then return to the Court of Appeals for the rest of their lives. That would provide them with the political independence guaranteed by lifetime tenure, while minimizing the ability of any president to pack the court with ideologues that may serve for decades.

In addition, if Supreme Court judges were picked (by law or by tradition) from circuit court judges with at least a decade of written federal appellate decisions behind them, Congress would have some yardstick of how they'd interpret the law once serving at the top.

Obviously, that would take a constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing a lot of state legislatures would approve it if was able to get through Congress.