Justice Antonin Scalia on Why We Don’t Need Church/State Separation

I have a hard time believing the founders would want Ten Commandments monuments placed in public squares or churches getting tax exemptions.

I think the founders would want all conceivable tax exemptions, for everything and everyone possible beyond a bare minimum.

I don’t see what’s difficult to understand about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

Very kind of the good sir to point out inconsistencies in this Amendment’s applications in the form of tax exemptions, chaplains and the Ten Commandments. Is he perhaps secretly a poe?

To see Scalia at his very worst, read his dissent in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the “Creation Science” case. It is ever so obvious that he starts with his conclusion, and then searches for arguments to support it.

Problems of inconsistency result when you start with your conclusions. For example, in this interview, he comments favorably on “originalism”: “When I first joined the Court, I needed to spend a lot of time researching what the original understanding was, since the lawyers would just quote the last Supreme Court case. There are now two for sure, thoroughgoing originalists on the Court, Clarence Thomas and myself. And I think the Court as a whole has become more receptive to originalism. I think – or perhaps I just hope – that American jurisprudence is moving away from an evolving Constitution to an enduring Constitution.”

In the very next paragraph he quotes, with apparent approval, this opinion from William O. Douglas: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…” Yeah? Show me that in the constitution, you self-contradicting moron.

“I hope my religious views do not affect my opinions at all.”

Sure. That’s why he has voted so often in favour of displaying the Koran on government property. Clueless git.

“It is a fact that for several hundred years nobody thought that the Constitution forbade restrictions on the termination of fetal life. It is a question of following the Constitution, not my religious predilections.” Once again, compare this with his praise of originalism. It doesn’t care what some people may have presumed for a couple centuries, if it’s not actually in the text of the constitution. Or did you change your mind from a few paragraphs earlier?

Veritas Says:

Scalia’s an idiot. His job isn’t to represent what the people of the United States believe. His job is to represent what the law of the United States is.

This is all I came to say.

Scalia dropped by my law school while I was still a student. Up to that point, I didn’t have an opinion on him. Now, I think he and Thomas are the worst justices on the court. Damn, the man can write, though.

This is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe.

And

That is not the American tradition.

Who freaking cares?

It’s not your job to interpret the American tradition or what Americans believe. It’s your job to interpret the United States Constitution. Which is pretty damn clear on the subject. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” What part of that don’t you understand?

Jackass.

As an expert on various and sundry matters who is keenly familiar with the clever intricacies of the law, it is my esteemed opinion that Scalia is a dick.

Scalia is himself why we need Church-State separation.

This is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe.

A majority of Americans would probably support repealing the Bill of Rights. But fortunately that’s the role of Congress, not the Supreme Court, so it will never get done.

To suggest that the First Amendment does not contain the concept of separation of church and state because it does not use those precise words is the same thing as suggesting that the Tenth Amendment does not contain the concept of federalism because it does not use that word.

Scalia is an originalist, which means that when he is principled in his decision-making, he focuses his jurisprudence on trying to discern the philosophical and practical intentions of the authors of the Constitution. This is not necessarily an invalid approach, although I personally think it is not what the Framers would have preferred. They did not think themselves so very wise as to have had all of the answers for all of the problems that would be faced by future generations.

Nor should we be critical of Scalia because every once in a while he deviates from a principled way of approaching the law and adopts a more results-based approach. All of us do this from time to time, and if he were to say, “You know, an originalist approach would lead me to conclusion X but frankly, I find that result too immoral to write into the law, so I think this case should be an exception and the result here should be Y,” that would be only natural. But what we (that is, I) can criticize him for is the fluidity with which he does it, particularly concerning matters of 1) governmental advancement of religion and 2) enhancing the power of the Executive branch of government at the expense of Congress and particularly the judiciary.

Oh, and 3) the fact that after deviating from his normally-principled approach, he refuses to acknowledge that he has carved out an exception to his general rule and instead insists that HE is the principled one and his Brethren are the ones imposing their policy preferences on the country willy-nilly. And 4) the fact that he makes reference to majoritarian-based arguments for political support; the Court is supposed to be above political pressures.

Transplanted Lawyer: “To suggest that the First Amendment does not contain the concept of separation of church and state because it does not use those precise words…”

I like to point out that the Bible does not contain the word “trinity.”

I for one am bothered there are now 6 Roman Catholics sitting on the Supreme Court. Even a liberal Catholic like Sotomayor could rule unexpectedly in the event of another challenge to Roe v. Wade; No one religious group should have a majority in such an important body as the Supreme Court, though I recognize that for most of its history it had a WASP majority. I fear for the future of state-church separation with 6 RC justices sitting on the court for the foreseeable future.

Delphine wrote:

Scalia made the unpopular call a few months ago that “the Constitution doesn’t guarantee an innocent man won’t be executed if he were to be found guilty after a fair trial.”

I agree with that statement.

Oh, I don’t. I think that if substantive due process means ANYTHING, it means that there will be procedures in place to prevent the imposition of the death penalty as a criminal punishment, when actual innocence can be established.

Dugg.

http://digg.com/politics/Scalia_Admits_U_S_Supreme_Court_Favors_Religion

It is infuriating and offensive to see a Justice of the Supreme Court blatantly dismiss as irrelevant the text of the constitution as well as the intentions of the founders in favor of “American tradition.” There are a lot of things that were “American traditions” in the past that we don’t do any more, things which shame most present-day Americans and anyone with any sense of morality.

That’s some religious freedom. As long as you pick some delusion. Any one will do.