Nearly everyone in law school thinks that Justice Scalia is a curmudgeonly old jurist who has backwards views on just about everything. And for those students who don't make any special effort in constitutional law to read more than the edited versions of their cases, or to investigate the veracity of the claims of their (frequently) leftist professors, they generally accept that Scalia is just that and more: a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.
 |
| Curmudgeon or grandfatherly sage? |
I have my disagreements with Justice Scalia's interpretive methodology. On the whole, I agree that textualism is a helpful way of approaching most fields of law. It is difficult, for example, to divine the intended purpose of legislation. At the same time, I ardently believe that constitutional interpretation must be grounded in something a little more substantive and normative. Moral philosophy, despite what Justice Scalia believes, has some place in how we read our Constitution, since the documents ambiguous terms refer to a motivating ideology, and not just concrete historical conceptions of "process," etc. Scalia and Bork's insistence on ignoring the Ninth Amendment, for example, is unfortunate.
I digress. Yesterday, at the Presidential Inauguration, the aforementioned Associate Justice sported a striking chapeau. Apparently, it was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. I say, Bravo! It is an awesome hat, and has meaning beyond its practical purpose. (It was rather cold on Monday!)
Over at First Things, Matthew Schmitz called Scalia's headgear a "martyr's cap." Hmm. But, of course, he impliedly suggested something even further:
"Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will."The humor of readers at "Eye of the Tiber" knows no limits. The first comment:
"While white is out after labor day, that hat is a hat for all seasons."
No comments:
Post a Comment