To have a successful blog, the blogger should be up bright and early. She or he should exhaustively peruse news and commentary sources. Then she or he should pound out her or his thoughts, opinions, and whatall.
Cranky is much too lazy for all this. He’s usually up late. He does peruse news and commentary sources, but it takes him most of the day. And only occasionally does he burden you with his thoughts. (Be thankful for small favors.)
All of this is by way of explaining why Cranky is just getting around to commenting on an event that occurred a couple of weeks ago. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes. Among the subjects that intellectual giant Leslie Stahl discussed with Honorable Antonin was the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Honorable Antonin contended that the Eighth Amendment does not necessarily prohibit torture because torture is not necessarily punishment. Pulling fingernails to make some alleged terrorist spill his guts is apparently just trying to get information; it is not punishment.
Talk about nitpicking on the meaning of words. Honorable Antonin is definitely one heckuva nitpicker.
Okay, but if you’re gonna be a nitpicker, you should nitpick all the way. For example, let’s take another Constitutional Amendment, the Second, you know, the one that says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. Here's the nitpick. Strictly construed, really strictly construed, “arms” should have the meaning it had at the time the Amendment was adopted. And at that time, the meaning was ye olde musket.
So the Second Amendment permits you to have all the muskets you want. But forget about that AK-47, or even that .22.
Some might contend that Cranky’s reasoning is defective. His Second Amendment interpretation is a time warp thing, which is different that Honorable Antonin’s torture is not punishment thing. But Cranky contends that at the heart of both arguments is nitpicking in the extreme. If you’re gonna pick a nit between torture and punishment, you should be consistent and pick a nit over the meaning of “arms.”
Back to you, Antonin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too watched the 60 Minutes interview with the “Honorable” Antonin Scalia and thankfully was not near any sharp objects. To hear the smug, arrogant answers he was spewing was enough to make you slam your head against the wall while screaming, “This guy is a Supreme Court Justice?!?!”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cranky here that not only was Scalia nitpicking with the Eighth Amendment and others, but was using a very convenient logic system, for lack of a better word, to defend his obscure views. “What are they being punished for?” answered Scalia to the torture question…that question is the very essence of the issue, you idiot! Similarly, picking up on Cranky’s example of gun rights, since Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist—or “Originalist” as he put it…hehe very upstanding—he would have to abide by the 2nd Amendment’s language and uphold the existing DC gun law that just went before the Court. Because the language in the Constitution does not explicitly state that one has the right to bear a “hand gun”.
Scalia’s methodology lends itself to being able to defend any decision by simply saying, “It’s not in the Constitution” or “Because the Founders thought this…” Much like people justify their actions by saying its “God’s will”, Scalia can waive the Constitution around and legitimize anything. For example, if a case came before the Court concerning a law that allows for the killing of babies, Scalia would have to uphold that law because the words “can’t kill babies” do not appear in the Constitution. One might say that the 8th Amendment states no cruel or unusual punishment. Using Scalia’s way of thinking: What are they being killed for?
Instead of trying to discern what the Founders were thinking when they drafted the Constitution (which is an endless argument), wouldn’t it be wiser if reason and common sense were applied to the law?
Random thought: If Scalia really believes that the Constitution is ‘dead’, why would the Founders have allowed the document to be amended?
Among other puke-inducing segments from the interview occurred when Scalia went back to visit his elementary school where he proudly boasted about being a straight A student. Well, apparently his elementary school forgot to teach (or perhaps Scalia was absent that day) about the timeless wisdom of a little-known American named Thomas Jefferson and his belief that laws ought to evolve with the times of society: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
**Author’s note: I purposefully did not comment on Scalia’s answer to Bush v. Gore (“Get over it”) because I didn’t want to pay for another keyboard.