I was checking out
The Daou Report over at
Salon.com, and I wondered right-ward to a post from the rabid
Pardon My English blog.
The blog entry amounts to a giddy slap at the Justices inspired by another one of Justice Scalia's immature outbursts at his colleagues - Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'" See, the Justice apparently called half of his fellow Justices "idiots," and of course the Right Wing giggles in delight at the chance to slur some of the most accomplishes jurists in the country.
After reading the article through, I recalled a statement made by the President ... and I wondered what Scalia would make of Bush's argument that FISA no longer applies for him because it's outdated ...
More on the flip
Now, I should say that I find Scalia to be an intelligent individual (if often wrong and childish in his rhetorical style). This whole "poopy head" approach to slurring judges with whom you disagree is in my mind disgraceful and misplaced. But I digress ... on to the article:
In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."
"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.
Aside from Scalia's bizare "The Jimmy" style of talking, "The Scalia" should be respected for having a clear and coherent judicial philosophy. Certainly, the Right tends to gush over him like he's King Solomon, so what exactly do they make of this:
Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."
"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."
"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
Well, the first thing they think is probably, "HELL YEAH! The Constitution don't say a thing about abortion, gay marriage, or (heck) separation of church and state!" Okay, we can have that debate ... but not everyone thinks the law needs to be read so closely.
From the White House:
Q Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with that law if you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential power?
THE PRESIDENT: May I -- if I might, you said that I have to circumvent it. There -- wait a minute. That's a -- there's something -- it's like saying, you know, you're breaking the law. I'm not. See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand.
Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.
Yes, the Constitution and constitutional jurisprudence differ substantially with the interpretation of statutes. No, Scalia is not a representative of the Republican Party (no matter how much the GOP pretends that he is). Yes, this is in the end just a rhetorical jab back at the Right Wingers who pick and choose their legal "philosophy."
But so what? Throw this right into their smirking face if they ever fall back on the "outdated law" argument. If TWO DECADES is long enough for the President to rewrite the law at his discretion, why makes the Constitution immune to creative readings after TWO CENTURIES?
