R.I.P Justice Scalia

[JEdwards]

abrogating to itself all certainty on the issue at hand.

"That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

Jon (arrogating to myself Inigo Montoya's line from The Princess Bride.)

[David Garner]

Well, for heaven's sake! Am I not to conclude that he would not "prefer" to have his religious, personal and judicial preference (that the protesters could be banned)? "Not prefer" can, in sensible conversation, equal "sorry." And BTW, he never said he was "glad" people had those rights he dislikes. He just (reluctantly, in my reading) admitted that they had them.

Your reading comprehension is abominable. Either that or you would rather slander your neighbor than be honest. I'm assuming the former for charity's sake.

[RevG]

While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?

It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael

If the concern is propriety I guess I was reacting to the instant impulse to nitpick somebody else's expression of honor to the deceased. In the immediate aftermath of news, President Harrison called the deceased a great friend of the LCMS in his role on the SCOTUS and a stalwart champion of issues dear to all Christians. As I said, it might have been nice had the statement offered condolences to the survivors. But is it really worth complaining about? Every pastor knows how deflating it is when somebody majoring in the minors offers up some petty criticism of something happening at church. I imagine it is the same with synodical presidents. Here is a guy engaged in the public square and being ecumenical about it; the alpb is the last place I'd expect to see him getting criticized for it.

Sure we all know about petty criticisms but his language isn't engaging or persuasive.  It lacks nuance and is incredibly polarizing.  What person on the opposite end of the spectrum is going to want to dialogue with someone who writes in such a manner?  I fail to sense an ecumenical spirit, let alone a spirit that would resonate with that of the ALPB. What such a writing does is it rallies those who agree with it and pushes further away those who disagree with it.  President Harrison has often claimed that he approaches his work pastorally but that's where I and other pastors sense a disconnect.  For example, I would never write such a thing to the congregation I serve because invariably it would alienate some.  Not because of a pro-life stance but because there are places where faithful Christians can legitimately disagree with Scalia.   One can applaud the efforts of such a person without turning into a rant against progressivism.  Scalia was a fascinating Justice standing for originalism but while he was pro-life he also had opinions that some conservative Christians may even find problematic like his thoughts on Brown v. Board of Ed.  What's more, not everything about progressivism is bad, there are good things that have come from such a political philosophy just like there are good things that have come from originalism. 

[Charles Austin]

How is it that in other arenas of discussion, some of them quite contentious, my comments are received, sometimes accepted, sometimes disputed, and my ability to discuss intelligently and understand those with whom I contend is not in question?
   How is it that it is only here in the ALPB forum, dominated by a particular faction in the LCMS or populated by those whose ideological bell dings with Pavlovian predictability when the LCMS gong sends out its D-Flat ding-dong that my ability to hear, speak and understand is considered weak tea?
    You guys hate it when I say this but it's true: Over the years I have been in serious, sometimes public discussion with priests, clergy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and prelates of various faith groups and I have laid out their words for people to read, sometimes with my own analysis of those words.
   I have also sat with state legislators, some members of Congress and a couple of Senators in discussion and for publication. Not to mention listening and talking with 15 or 20 town councils, boards of education, zoning boards, police departments and courts. For a while, I had to manage such things in a couple of languages, usually, but not always, with the help of interpreters and translators.
   So how is it that only here, in this forum, and particularly with words spread upon these "pages" by Peter, that I seem to be deemed illiterate? Might it by that I am the only one here contending that certain words and concepts are just stupid and stinky?
   But we digress. And I tire. Carry on. 

[Steven Tibbetts]

How is it that in other arenas of discussion, some of them quite contentious, my comments are received, sometimes accepted, sometimes disputed, and my ability to discuss intelligently and understand those with whom I contend is not in question? ...

...But we digress. And I tire. Carry on.

Apparently you write differently on this forum from elsewhere.

Pax, Steven+

[Dan Fienen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG6SCDUiFZs

[David Garner]

How is it that in other arenas of discussion, some of them quite contentious, my comments are received, sometimes accepted, sometimes disputed, and my ability to discuss intelligently and understand those with whom I contend is not in question?
   How is it that it is only here in the ALPB forum, dominated by a particular faction in the LCMS or populated by those whose ideological bell dings with Pavlovian predictability when the LCMS gong sends out its D-Flat ding-dong that my ability to hear, speak and understand is considered weak tea?
    You guys hate it when I say this but it's true: Over the years I have been in serious, sometimes public discussion with priests, clergy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and prelates of various faith groups and I have laid out their words for people to read, sometimes with my own analysis of those words.
   I have also sat with state legislators, some members of Congress and a couple of Senators in discussion and for publication. Not to mention listening and talking with 15 or 20 town councils, boards of education, zoning boards, police departments and courts. For a while, I had to manage such things in a couple of languages, usually, but not always, with the help of interpreters and translators.
   So how is it that only here, in this forum, and particularly with words spread upon these "pages" by Peter, that I seem to be deemed illiterate? Might it by that I am the only one here contending that certain words and concepts are just stupid and stinky?
   But we digress. And I tire. Carry on.

It's easy -- you took a quote where a recently deceased Supreme Court justice made the point that the Constitution constrains justices to act only within the authority it grants them, and turned it into a claim that said justice actually thought it unfortunate that this was the case.

When that justice might be the ONLY justice on the Court in the past 40 years or so who actually took that Constitutional restraint seriously.

That's how.  You betray an inability to read and comprehend that was too obvious to ignore.  Either that or, as I said, you are willing to lie in order to slander a brother in Christ. 

[Dave Likeness]

Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist concerning the U.S.  Constitution.
He interpreted it according to the original meaning of the words in this
document.  Obviously, his voice was one of letting the Constitution interpret
itself.  May his contribution to the Supreme Court be remembered as one
who respected the Constitution and did not try to revise it.

[Charles Austin]

There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

[George Erdner]

Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist concerning the U.S.  Constitution.
He interpreted it according to the original meaning of the words in this
document.  Obviously, his voice was one of letting the Constitution interpret
itself.  May his contribution to the Supreme Court be remembered as one
who respected the Constitution and did not try to revise it.

I find that a great many Christians treat the Bible the same way.

[John_Hannah]

I like Justice Scalia's self description expressed as, "originalist." Commentators on both sides of our deplorable polarization have posited that his "originalist" philosophy has penetrated the judicial community and will be his enduring legacy.

Correspondingly, that is the way I view the Lutheran Symbols and, I think, the way the Missouri Synod constitution views them as well. Maybe Justice Scalia's influence will seep into American Lutheran identity so that we can see our Confessions with their positive affirmations as well as their limits. (No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   

Peace, JOHN

[LutherMan]

(No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   

Peace, JOHN

What was so hasty about it?

[James_Gale]

I like Justice Scalia's self description expressed as, "originalist." Commentators on both sides of our deplorable polarization have posited that his "originalist" philosophy has penetrated the judicial community and will be his enduring legacy.

Correspondingly, that is the way I view the Lutheran Symbols and, I think, the way the Missouri Synod constitution views them as well. Maybe Justice Scalia's influence will seep into American Lutheran identity so that we can see our Confessions with their positive affirmations as well as their limits. (No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   

Peace, JOHN

To fill in a bit more color, Scalia believed that the courts should apply a law in accordance with the text's "original meaning" or "original public meaning."  This judicial philosophy is based on the premise that the best way to understand a law's meaning is to understand each word or phrase as people generally understood the word or phrase at the time of the law's enactment.


He generally did not like to rely on legislative history or other secondary material when interpreting a law.  He argued that this was an unreliable method for discerning "original intent" because different legislators (and lobbyists) might have very different reasons for supporting the same statute.  If a judge uses legislative history (which is not law) in seeking to understand "original intent," that judge is almost certainly will give emphasis to one reason underlying legislative support for the law at the expense of others.  This would lead to misapplication of the law.  The original public meaning of text therefore should be the primary (if not exclusive) focus of the courts, whether the law at issue is the Constitution or something else.

[JEdwards]

He generally did not like to rely on legislative history or other secondary material when interpreting a law.  He argued that this was an unreliable method for discerning "original intent" because different legislators (and lobbyists) might have very different reasons for supporting the same statute.  If a judge uses legislative history (which is not law) in seeking to understand "original intent," that judge is almost certainly will give emphasis to one reason underlying legislative support for the law at the expense of others.  This would lead to misapplication of the law.  The original public meaning of text therefore should be the primary (if not exclusive) focus of the courts, whether the law at issue is the Constitution or something else.

It was not uncommon to read, in the report of a Court decision, something along the lines of "Justice X delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Y, and by Justice Scalia except as to footnote 21."  Invariably, footnote 21 would make a reference to legislative history.

Jon

[David Garner]

There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

That's right.  But it's not what justices do.  Or at least it's not what they are supposed to do.

Justice Scalia's dissents are legendary, but one of his greatest was PGA v. Martin, where he excoriated the 7 member majority, using both wit and ridicule.  I think my favorite argument is where he discussed the august Court weighing the prominent and heart-rending issue of whether walking is as essential to golf as having a 3-inch cup or 18 holes.  His parting shot:

"Complaints about this case are not "properly directed to Congress," ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court's Kafkaesque determination that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are 'places of public accommodation' to the competing athletes, and the athletes themselves 'customers' of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable 'essential' and 'nonessential' rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one's lack of ability (or at least no one's lack of ability so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and 'everybody was finally equal.' K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997)."

The Court meddling where it ought not is what Scalia spent a career fighting against.  As a friend said the night he passed, "a life dedicated to answering a simple question: who decides?"