MEDITATION NUMBER FIVE
On Scalia’s Soapbox

Scalia’s conclusion shows his true point of view:

It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

That is to say, medical and scientific opinion is, to Scalia, simply “culture,” a big load of propaganda supporting the “so-called homosexual agenda.” Again, Scalia denies the real world and asserts his own sense of intellectual purity as a “strict constructionist.”

Of course, Bush v Gore echoes here loudly, once again.

It is arguable as to whether “judicial restraint” or “originalism” or whatever you want to call it serves justice better than does “judicial activism.” However, one thing is clear: Scalia does not really adhere to his own stated judicial philosophy—he is only an “originalist” when it comes to considering liberal views; conservative causes, such as getting Bush into the Oval Office, get a more activist approach. It’s kind of funny, actually. The debate about “activism” versus “restraint” has been going on since the 1960s; it now appears that “restraint,” as a philosophy, has prevailed. The irony is that nobody actually seems to believe in it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$