Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead

My three opinionated thoughts on the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia:

 

1) A man is dead. So what? I've read many progressives saying that no one should be mean about it, because of 'his family' or 'his work efforts' or his 'commitment'. That's muddled and confused. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease. A man is dead. However, this was a man who had inordinate power to positively or negatively affect the lives of every person in this country. He no longer has that. By "celebrating" his death, people aren't rejoicing in his passage; they are rejoicing because he no longer has the power to hurt them, many of those he has hurt before. I say, let them celebrate. A request to show respect for one many see as their abuser is to ask for people to lie about the hurt done them, showing hollow respect for a legacy of abuse. The man is dead, and that isn't where people are finding their joy. It's that the inevitable has removed him from the Supreme Court. He was not the worst SC Justice ever, and likely won't be comparable to the worst we see in the future. But he no longer has power over any of us. The man is dead. More to the point, his legacy, his power to affect us, is over.

 

2) At work yesterday, I spoke of his death to 9 of the 11 student employees I shared the store with on that Saturday. Not one of them knew who Antonin Scalia was. Not one. Scalia, with others, made rulings that will powerfully impact the futures of these young people, and apparently he did it completely in the shadows as far as they are concerned. I can't describe my disappointment. I will, however suggest this: If the Supreme Court is to have such power, perhaps we as citizens shouldn't be allowing them to hold it in such obscurity.

 

3)  In contrast to the disappointment I feel in the young folk who don't recognize the tools used to control their lives, I am laughing at the 'true progressives' and 'real liberals' who 4 years ago told us all how evil the re-election of Barack Obama would be.  One of the strongest arguments for his re-election was his Constitutional obligation to appoint Supreme Court Justices.  Despite the caterwaul coming from Republicans and FAUX News already, this is a Constitutional obligation of the sitting President, not the President they wish they had.  Scalia has not been dead for 72 hours and the anti-Constitutional wail from the right has already begun.  That will play out over the next year.  What satisfies me, most personally, is how short-sighted and wrong the "True" progressives have proven.  Given the almost unbelievable power the SCOTUS has been granted (including the power to define their own role)  any suggestion that a vote for President because of his nomination duty is meaningless proves the vacuous ignorance of those who suggest such a thing.  These are the same idiots who think we are stupid for paying attention to what they foolishly assume is only 'partisan politics'.  The Supreme Court handed Dumbya Bush the Presidency, by vote of 5-4.  That's a decision that Sandra Day O'Conner has admitted to regretting.  Dumbya nominated Roberts and 'Sc'Alito, neither of which acknowledge that the founders MEANT for the Constitution to change to suit the nation.  The SCOTUS handed Corporations the financial keys to our 'Democracy' by a vote of 5-4, based on a biased clerk's statement over a hundred years ago.  The next SCOTUS could reverse the century old opinion that corporations are 'persons', if only the right people sit on the court.  It's time to thumb the nose at those who think Presidential elections don't matter when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court.  Hey, progo-kids, we were right and you were wrong.  Whine all you want, but we have Kagen and Sotomeyer and will soon have another reasonable progressive on the SCOTUS.  Withholding your vote from the evil Obama, what have you accomplished?

Comments

[Greg Strandberg]

Speaking of obscurity when it comes to courts, how about our own Montana Supreme Court?

I've heard next to nil on those races this year.

[Wulfgar]

Greg, if that's the case, then i suggest that you aren't looking.

There is a significant and obvious difference between the MTSC and the SCOTUS. We elect our SC justices in this state, and their roles are clearly defined in our Constitution. This does tend to make the seats far more political in nature, and exposes them to political review at regular intervals. If you haven't heard anything yet, just wait. It's coming.

However, federal law and Constitution always trumps state, as ruled by the SCOTUS (Altria v. Good and many other rulings.) Notice how very few Montanans could even name that ruling from 2008. SCOTUS justices are appointed, often from and with political agendas, and they serve for life or term of choice. As I indicated, from the very beginning, the SCOTUS has had some ability to define it's own role in the separation of powers, which according to Bush v. Gore extends to selecting who our President will be. That would be a President who nominated two justices strengthening the already conservative anti-citizenry bent of our current court.

Apologies if I didn't address the weak electoral power granted by Montanans to their Justice system. Perhaps you can do a better job of posting about what I obviously didn't care to post about in the first place.

[Greg Strandberg]

I'll be putting stuff up as we get closer...I hope. I rely on the Montana media a lot and I just haven't been seeing too much. Maybe that'll change.