SCALIA DISMISSES CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY IN SPEECH
BY REBECCA SANTANA
ASSOCIATED PRESS
METAIRIE, La. (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.
Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court's longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.
"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.
Scalia said during the Sept. 11 attacks he was in Rome at a conference. The next morning, after a speech by President George W. Bush in which he invoked God and asked for his blessing, Scalia said many of the other judges approached him and said they wished their presidents or prime ministers would do the same.
"God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways," Scalia said.
"There is nothing wrong with that and do not let anybody tell you that there is anything wrong with that," he added.
Scalia's comments Saturday come as the court prepares to hear arguments later this year in a case that challenges part of President Barack Obama's health care law and whether it adequately shields faith-based hospitals, colleges and charities from having to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees.
Scalia is often a lightning rod for controversy on the court.
In December he came under fire for comments he made during an affirmative action case, questioning whether some black students would benefit from going to a "slower-track school" instead of Texas' flagship campus in Austin.
My knowledge of United States history isn't that detailed but I don't think that this is true.
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
That's the funny thing. Scalia can say what Scalia wants when he's not in court. And, well...he's in the court where Scalia can say most of what Scalia wants. Let's not pretend we're surprised.
This seems like the kind of thing that would get somebody in this sort of position officially censured if it happened outside of the US. But, given that Scalia has pulled this shit before I find any sort of action against him unlikely.
Who's going to censure him? The other 8 judges? Do they even have such a procedure? It's just a tad hard once you're in that position. They're sort of self-governing and woe be to everyone else. And that goes for both sides of the aisle, honestly. Please don't ask me to quote anything here, it's mostly rants from a co-worker months old, but whatever.
Judges can be impeached by Congress, but only for the same crimes as the President. I don't think it's ever actually been done. As for censure...Congress could censure them, but it would have no effect.
Basically, the US Constitution predates almost all mechanisms for recall of judges other than "have the king fire them."
The Founders forgot to include a mechanism for removing Supreme Court justices. And we never got around to fixing that little oversight, because there are usually good reasons to make them impossible to fire*. But as I thought I commented earlier (Internet may have eaten it)... sometimes I really wish there were a mechanism for recalling a justice specifically because they've obviously gone senile and forgotten the basic principles of constitutional law as taught in introductory law courses.
______________
*As a lovely example, would you want President Trump being able to kick out all the liberal justices with the aid of a congressional majority?
Thats why in Austria, a Supreme Court Judgge is automatically retired once he reaches age of 70, and can be dismissed earlier by his peers when it becomes obvious that he has become unable or unworthy to continue his job (a bunch of tightly defined reasons).
Of course, with the partisanship in American politics, you'd probably need to have unanimous decisions for dismissals, or it would be abused.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
Simon_Jester wrote:Basically, the US Constitution predates almost all mechanisms for recall of judges other than "have the king fire them."
The Founders forgot to include a mechanism for removing Supreme Court justices. And we never got around to fixing that little oversight, because there are usually good reasons to make them impossible to fire*. But as I thought I commented earlier (Internet may have eaten it)... sometimes I really wish there were a mechanism for recalling a justice specifically because they've obviously gone senile and forgotten the basic principles of constitutional law as taught in introductory law courses.
______________
*As a lovely example, would you want President Trump being able to kick out all the liberal justices with the aid of a congressional majority?
I think this could be solved by giving justices a fixed term of 10 years or so, and having them replaced by either a national vote or a non-partisan committee. No judge can serve consecutive terms, but you can serve multiple unconnected terms. Schedule things so you get 7 years without replacing them and then 3 years together where they get steadily replaced. It's not perfect, but it fixes the complete immunity they have and gives incentive for them to care about the choices they make.
C'mon, lets not diminish the independence of the court just because some judges are assholes.
Scalia is an unrepentent, arrogant ignoramus. I have witnessed him telling entire law conferences that all the scholars there had no idea except for him and he alone was right (not in so many words).
But it is not worth it entangling the institution of the court in this matter. Hopefully, Scalia will be gone soon.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
As for the Constitution not having a mechanism for dislodging Supreme Court justices, I imagine the thought at the time was that it would likely take many decades for a judge or lawyer to get enough prominence to be considered for the Supreme Court. And back when one's expected lifespan was in (IIRC) roughly the 60s, it could be expected that the natural course of events would thin out the Court on a fairly regular basis. Not so much nowadays.
Is there even any likelihood that any change will occur to that particular portion of the Constitution anytime soon, though? It certainly doesn't seem to be one that anyone pays much attention to except when the Republicans don't like something that the Court decides...
Terralthra wrote:Judges can be impeached by Congress, but only for the same crimes as the President. I don't think it's ever actually been done. As for censure...Congress could censure them, but it would have no effect.
Jub wrote:This seems like the kind of thing that would get somebody in this sort of position officially censured if it happened outside of the US. But, given that Scalia has pulled this shit before I find any sort of action against him unlikely.
Censured for what, pointing out the obvious?
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Jub wrote:This seems like the kind of thing that would get somebody in this sort of position officially censured if it happened outside of the US. But, given that Scalia has pulled this shit before I find any sort of action against him unlikely.
Censured for what, pointing out the obvious?
For violating the spirit of the anti-partisan nature of the supreme court which was established during the impeachment of Samuel Chase.
Jub wrote:This seems like the kind of thing that would get somebody in this sort of position officially censured if it happened outside of the US. But, given that Scalia has pulled this shit before I find any sort of action against him unlikely.
Censured for what, pointing out the obvious?
It's only obvious to you because of cretinism.
Seriously, Scalia's stated views in the speech do not constitute any kind of 'known fact' that can be treated as 'obvious' or neutral. They are a political stance, a stance specifically intended to promote the idea that the government should back religious beliefs (specifically, his).
Which is a failure to comprehend the establishment cause and its purposes, so severe that it calls into question whether Scalia knows enough constitutional law to sit on the bench in America at all, let alone in the Supreme Court.
