Justice Antonin Scalia: The Supreme Court Needs Fewer “Judges”
(December 5, 2003 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images News)
Justice Antonin Scalia made a public appearance Monday speaking to roughly 600 people at the First Baptist Church of Jackson, Mississippi. The event was sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law and the Mission First Legal Aid Office. As is usually the case when Justice Scalia makes public appearances, he spoke largely off the cuff and provided yet another reminder why he’s the greatest Supreme Court Justice of this or any generation for that matter. He spoke about a number of topics including the citation of foreign law in American courts, the ever-increasing caseload of the Highest Court, and the burden that the increased size of legislation places on the Justices… among other issues and topics posed to him by the audience.
In speaking about the current composition of the Court he chose not to delve into the radical nominee sent forth by President Obama or those that preceded her; but instead chose to use the opportunity to speak about the nomination process as a whole. He told the crowd that there were essentially too many “judges” on the Supreme Court. Now in fairness, he wasn’t taking potshots at any of the current members or even their backgrounds. More accurately, he was referring to the recent preference for choosing nominees who are currently serving or have had a long history of serving as a judge at a different level of government.
Scalia worked as a lawyer in private practice, a law professor and an appeals court judge, among other things, before being elevated to the Supreme Court.
“One of the things I’m concerned about is that in recent years nobody has been appointed who hasn’t come from another bench,” he said.
Scalia said the recent trend is “leading us toward the European system,” where many judges are bureaucrats.
In Europe “when you get out of law school, you select your career. You decide if you want to be a private lawyer, maybe go into diplomatic service or you can be a judge,” Scalia said. “In which case you immediately begin as a baby judge, and if you keep your nose clean and don’t make waves you get promoted by a board of judges.
“Your whole life you have done nothing but be a judge and you come to think the government is always right,” he said. “Now you contrast that with the Anglo-Saxon system where, in the most important courts, the judges not only have not been spending their whole lives with their snout in the public trough, they’ve been suing the government. They’ve been defending their clients against the government. (It’s) a different mindset.”
Justice Scalia time and time again illustrates so plainly, yet so eloquently, everything that is fundamentally wrong with the political process of the 21st century and its interpretation of the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Speaking candidly to a group of individuals, he in modestly answering one question, explained more than a career politician could hope to do in a lifetime. He was simply reminding the audience that the political process has imposed restrictions, qualifications, and standards for the Highest Court that were simply not intended by those who drafted the Constitution. Article Two, which gives the President the power to nominate justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, says nothing about the qualifications of said nominee. His point… Politics – not the will or intent of the men that drafted the document determine that these individuals must come from a lifetime of service in a judicial post.
It should be noted, that I certainly do not believe that Justice Scalia is of the mindset that Justices should be plucked from the rank and file of the legal world. He is still talking about the best and the brightest here – just not necessarily judges by prerequisite. Lets just be honest. He’s not scouting for law clerks at Mississippi College School of Law. No offense Mississippi College of Law.
(December 5, 2003 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images News)
If that is the case then you might ask, why should any of this matter – as you said, he’s not advocating average Joe lawyers being nominated for positions on the Highest Court. The answer lies not in this simple and perhaps meaningless debate, but in the process that led to his position. The Constitution, when interpreted strictly as it was intended to be, paints a picture for government in America that looks drastically different than that which we gaze upon today. That is precisely why any of this should matter. Its about the political process and token political talking points of the two political parties continuously ignoring the Constitution as if it only guides them on the “big issues.” The debate over health care reform or cap and trade appear dramatically different when the first question posed is “was this really an intended function of government at the federal level?” not “how we gonna pay for this?”
The brilliance of Scalia is often lost on so many because they disagree with his positions on so many “issues.” They ignore the fact that to Scalia, it is the process of arriving at said positions that is fundamentally important – not agreeing when you get there. The reality is that many on the far left who trumpet the talking points of liberalism would wholeheartedly agree with 99.9% of Scalia’s rationale on every “controversial” issue if said process led to a favorable result. Conversely, many “conservatives” love love love Scalia because he comes down on their “side” on major “issues” having no idea how he got there. Strict interpretation of the Constitution is so lost on this generation of “conservatives” that it frankly scares the hell out of me. The only group that consistently gets even the idea of it are the “libertarians” and many of them would love to see the government stripped down to nothing to make sure its used… but at least they understand the origin of their most closely held beliefs. I can’t say that for the vast majority of my conservative brethren.
Any “conservative” who truly thinks he/she has a role to play in the world of political persuasion should turn off Fox News for the afternoon, stop reading this crap, and cuddle up with a few of Scalia’s opinions. Don’t just grab the big ones where he writes for the Majority. Grab a few of his dissents and see how he distinguishes himself even from other “conservatives” on the bench. I think it would do every “conservative” – hell even every liberal for that matter – a great deal of good to see strict interpretation truly at work.
The Mississippi College School of Law website posted a few of the Q&A responses…
His opinion in that case was a carefully worded reflection of what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when it comes to bearing arms. “I’m so proud of it,” the Harvard Law School graduate told a crowd of more than 600 guests on a chilly day in the new year. It’s an amendment adopted back in 1791.
Terrific post. When I was in law school there were literally only a handful of judges we read that I could even stomach. Scalia was and is hands down the best I’ve ever read, not only because he’s usually right, but because he writes so much more eloquently than the rest.
Your point is well taken. I went at it with some idiot on Twitter (don’t judge me) today for a bit who literally was incredulous when I told him that no, jackass, the Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document and that its underlying philosophy is as grounded in 1787 as it is today. The respective philosophies that result in conditions of individual liberty or slavery are more or less etched in stone for all time. Scalia gets this. Thomas gets this. Reagan got that.
It’s our job today to make sure as many people as possible also get that.
Good post.
Much appreciated man. I won’t hold the Twitter thing against you either… for now.
[...] Justice Antonin Scalia: The Supreme Court Needs Fewer “Judges” By T. CHRISTOPHER [...]
Your point is well taken. I went at it with some idiot on Twitter (don’t judge me) today for a bit who literally was incredulous when I told him that no, jackass, the Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document and that its underlying philosophy is as grounded in 1787 as it is today. The respective philosophies that result in conditions of individual liberty or slavery are more or less etched in stone for all time. Scalia gets this. Thomas gets this. Reagan got that.
+1
[...] Justice Antonin Scalia: The Supreme Court Needs Fewer “Judges” By T. CHRISTOPHER [...]
[...] Justice Antonin Scalia: The Supreme Court Needs Fewer “Judges” By T. CHRISTOPHER [...]