SULLY ON SCALIA
 |
James Joyner | Monday, June 30, 2003 |
Andrew Sullivan argues Antonin Scalia lacks the proper temperament to be a judge:
What troubles me about Antonin Scalia is not so much the substance of his views (although I share very few of them) but the angry, sarcastic, bitter tone of his judgments. David Broder had a similar take last week. Part of what it takes to be a judge, in my mind, is a certain indifference to passionate advocacy, a sense of moderation, and prudence. If someone cares as passionately as Scalia does about the moral issues in what he has called the “culture war,” and if he isn’t even interested in moderating these passions in his judicial rulings, then it strikes me that he is not acting as a justice should act: with dignity, care, distance, and respect for alternative arguments. It’s the tone that’s off. It can be amusing, bracing, shocking, interesting; but it certainly isn’t a judicial tone.
I disagree with Sully on this one, as regular readers might expect. I read Scalia’s tone as an indication of frustration with his colleagues’ willingness to flout the Constitution and judicial precedent to arrive at a political outcome they desire. Scalia often rules in ways that result in policy outcomes he dislikes but that nonetheless comport with his understanding of the law and the proper role of judges in it. To me, that’s the essence of judicial temperament.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- OTB Latenight - Jim Croce
- Caption Contest Winners
- What’s the Opposite of Schadenfreude?
- Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways
- Obama’s Short National Security Team
- Wire Politics
- 10 Funniest Political Quotes Of 2008 -
- Memeorandum Beats Google News
- US in Recession Since December 2007
- Sex Offender Registry Stupidity
Sully lets his crusade impare his judgement.
Ah, yes, Sullivan advising Scalia on letting specific political passions *ahem, pardon that term, but I couldn't help myself* overwhelm one's good judgment. He's surely one to advise in that area.
I would like to ask what some other "activist" justices have said in their dissents (or majority opinions for that matter) that is "less than judicial." I'm curious, for instance, about the opinions of Justice Thurgood Marshall?
I would wager that there's quite a bit of battling that goes on in dissenting opinions.
Scalia is somewhat more sarcastic than the norm, I'd wager. But, yes, dissenting opinons are almost without fail more lively and biting than the majority opinon.
---
Comments are Closed
