The sudden, Shakespearian expiration of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the dominant beast among those powerful, legal lions who prowl the protective den where the precepts of this nation’s laws are stored, is a mark of a true drama queen. That extraordinarily demonstrative distinction of one who dominates the attention of the public -- and which is class-neutral – is manifested thusly:
1. At a particular moment of time
2. Intermittently, over time.
3. Over a sustained period of time
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, drama queen extraordinaire, dominated all three of those occasions, as follows:
1. When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is in session, it was Scalia’s probing obstinacy that was anticipated.
2. Every time SCOTUS met, win or lose, there was no doubt that the dominant thrust would be in the form of a Scalia rant, terminology coinage and/or an incisive legal opinion.
3. Over his 30-year, SCOTUS-bench stint, Antonin Scalia diligently sustained in motion those activities outlined in 1 and 2, above.
Adding to his drama queensbury punch, Scalia departed the scene:
1. Immediately prior to a Republican presidential debate, which assured that his departure would receive proper deference from the droit side of politics and governance that he so cherished. There was nothing gauche about Scalia’s preferences.
2. Counted among those debating presidential candidates is a flamboyant businessman, the reigning, non-judicial drama queen at this moment in American history who, with all the histrionics he could muster, for all the nation and the world to see, firmly and for the ages, did dub drama queenship upon his judicial equivalent.
3. Scalia’s untimely passing immediately would unleash a sustained, national discussion as to his replacement – or not – to the bench.
Antonin Scalia was the nation’s leading, constitutional originalist/textualist (OT). Basically, that means, if James Madison and the rest did not actually describe those exact words, then, that ain’t it! Scalia regarded a modern interpretation of the Framers original intent to be heresy. He and other OTs, such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas are adamant that, if the Constitution actually did not utter it, it ain’t said. (Considering what was said, it bodes badly for Thomas, in particular, since he would remain just another person, worth only 3/5 of himself.)
Actually, and seriously, the object of the OTs is to make the Constitution say what it means. They hold that, since Constitutional meaning must precisely be expressed, that expression must derive from the original wording or the Bill of Rights and any subsequent amendments. They maintain that, in order the laws keep pace with modernity, they must be promulgated by the individual states or the Congress of the U.S. Should SCROTUS accept any of those laws in dispute, they are tested against the OT standard. As nice and stodgy as that is, in order for the Constitution to be OT-pure, it would have to weigh a ton or more.
Consider the changes that have taken place since the days of that shuttered, stuffy and hot little edifice in Philadelphia’s oppressive, July heat. That thin papyrus would be overwhelmed with the multiplicity of conflicts resulting from:
The telegraph; photography; medicine; electricity; the telephone; aircraft; radio; television; spacecraft; the computer; social media – and whatever else shall be wrought on terra firma or the infinity of the multiverse.
Even Adams, Jefferson and the rest – especially Franklin -- are now yelling, “Please, please; forget your damned OT! Just imagine that we anticipated all of that shit, and just interpret away, as you like, on what we wrote! Leave us alone; we’ve had it -- sheeze!”
So, there you go, Tony S. – straight from the mouths of your be-wigged, plaster saints. But, listen not to us; you are now in position to consult with them directly.
***** ***** *****
To higher court he’s ascended.
It needs must be well attended.
Did he take the cure?
There’s one thing for sure:
He’s there with knee quite “unbended.”
Comments