Saturday, April 15, 2006
Breaking News: Some consider Justice Scalia provocative
For some reason, Charles Lane at the Washington Post thinks any criticisms of Justice Scalia are worthy of A Section noting: Once Again, Scalia's the Talk of the Town. In his article, he rehashes the old non-story about a Justice Scalia hand gesture last month in Boston and predictably the recusal issue (on which he had previously written about and about which I had previously commented Justice Scalia, Hamdan and some retired military officers):
“There were calls for his recusal from a case on military commissions after reports of his March 8 meeting at the University of Friburg in Switzerland, where he told the audience that it was "crazy" to suggest that terror suspects get a "full jury trial." Scalia participated in the case.”
Admittedly, I am an admirer of Justice Scalia and generally agree with his decision-making. Still, as hard as I try to look at this from another viewpoint, I can’t understand all the commotion. We should be commending Justice Scalia for being willing to get in front of people and discuss his work. Instead, we get silly comments such as this:
"It's sad as much as anything else," said Dennis J. Hutchinson, a former law clerk to two justices who teaches Supreme Court history at the University of Chicago. "It suggests to me a frustration with his colleagues and the left-wing kulturkampf in the academy, and it just does not add to the dignity of the office."
(In all fairness, Professor Hutchinson may just be overly sensitive to the ‘dignity’ issue. After all, he clerked for Justice Byron – at the top of the ‘dignity’ scale - and then Justice William O. Douglas, who provides the bottom markings on that scale.)
There is the tendency of many to almost deify the Supreme Court. (Who can forget House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s classic comment in the wake of the Court’s Kelo decision: “So this is almost as if God has spoken.”) That is perhaps wishful thinking for those who like their chances for favorable results with the Supreme Court rather than the Executive and Legislative branches. But we can thank God (among others) that Justice Scalia doesn’t hold such a self-aggrandizing opinion of his role in the government….and that he is not too shy about reminding us of that.
“There were calls for his recusal from a case on military commissions after reports of his March 8 meeting at the University of Friburg in Switzerland, where he told the audience that it was "crazy" to suggest that terror suspects get a "full jury trial." Scalia participated in the case.”
Admittedly, I am an admirer of Justice Scalia and generally agree with his decision-making. Still, as hard as I try to look at this from another viewpoint, I can’t understand all the commotion. We should be commending Justice Scalia for being willing to get in front of people and discuss his work. Instead, we get silly comments such as this:
"It's sad as much as anything else," said Dennis J. Hutchinson, a former law clerk to two justices who teaches Supreme Court history at the University of Chicago. "It suggests to me a frustration with his colleagues and the left-wing kulturkampf in the academy, and it just does not add to the dignity of the office."
(In all fairness, Professor Hutchinson may just be overly sensitive to the ‘dignity’ issue. After all, he clerked for Justice Byron – at the top of the ‘dignity’ scale - and then Justice William O. Douglas, who provides the bottom markings on that scale.)
There is the tendency of many to almost deify the Supreme Court. (Who can forget House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s classic comment in the wake of the Court’s Kelo decision: “So this is almost as if God has spoken.”) That is perhaps wishful thinking for those who like their chances for favorable results with the Supreme Court rather than the Executive and Legislative branches. But we can thank God (among others) that Justice Scalia doesn’t hold such a self-aggrandizing opinion of his role in the government….and that he is not too shy about reminding us of that.
