Justice Antonin Scalia authored a Supreme Court opinion published today that curtailed certain kinds of police searches using drug-sniffing dogs. The holding in Florida v. Jardines was that such searches are unconstitutional and a violation of the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment. Scalia notably lead a 5-4 majority that included “liberal” justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in opposition to the “conservative” minority that included Chief Justice Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy (along with Stephen Breyer).
Don’t expect to hear all that much about this decision in the days to come.
No, the primary thrust of the Scalia-related coverage over the next week will be what an intolerant, ignorant monster he is. He’ll be roundly criticized for his judicial philosophy by people who have never so much as read the entirety of the Constitution. A few choice quotes will be bandied about by certain websites as grist for their ideological mill.
So, I write today to defend a man whose intellect I unashamedly admire—a man who really needs no defense in the first place.
Perhaps the most-talked-about exchange during today’s Supreme Court Prop 8 oral argument (and certainly the one of most interest to me personally) was this one, between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson. It’s somewhat-lengthy, but worth the read. I’ll comment at the end:
MR. OLSON: The California Supreme Court, like this Supreme Court, decides what the law is. The California Supreme Court decided that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of that California Constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married-
JUSTICE SCALIA: You — you’ve led me right into a question I was going to ask. The California Supreme Court decides what the law is. That’s what we decide, right? We don’t prescribe law for the future. We–we decide what the law is. I’m curious, when -when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?
Continue reading →
Hey, It’s Not the End of the World
One of the temptations of our disposable and wildly narcissistic modern culture is to presume that whatever is happening now must be more important than anything that has happened previously—not only more important because it’s happening to us, but also objectively more important.
The 1920 Wall Street Bombing
This happens all the time in a sports context when athletic endeavors filter through the hyperbolic prism of modern media. A great game becomes the greatest game. A bad error becomes the worst error. The best basketball player of the day is immediately compared to Michael Jordan (until the new new best player of the day comes along).
As I’ve said before, nothing can be a “3” or a “7.” Everything is a zero or a ten. Otherwise, why bother?
Likewise, a recurring theme in contemporary political and news-related discussion is how little people actually know about the basic history of our nation—even among the educated segments of our citizenry.
Continue reading →
Share this: