Yeah, I know. Crazy. But when I see stuff like this:
The impact of the death of the conservative supreme court justice Antonin Scalia on the political sway of the nation was laid bare on Tuesday when the eight surviving justices held each other to a draw over an attempt to gut the power of public sector unions.
Looks healthy to ME…
By dividing evenly 4-4, the country’s highest judicial panel averted a major blow to unions representing government workers and teachers. The split leaves in place a lower appeals court ruling that allows unions to continue to collect mandatory dues from workers covered by collective bargaining even though those workers refuse to join the union.
The supreme court issued a one-page ruling that gave no clue as to its thinking other to note that the “judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court”. But there was little doubt that the outcome underlined the seismic shift that has occurred in the US as a result of Scalia’s death last month.
In oral arguments in January, Scalia made it plain that he was minded to vote to overturn the 1977 ruling, Abood v Detroit Board of Education, that allows unions to collect fees from non-members in order to carry out collective bargaining on their behalf. Had he done so, the supreme court would have divided by the 5-4 conservative-to-liberal dynamic that was dominant until Scalia’s death….
… I couldn’t help wondering: We’re sure Scalia died of natural causes, right?
Sure, I’m embarrassed to express such a thought out loud. I mean, these unions represent teachers, and nice government workers like the ones I’m always defending from Doug.
But still: Where’s Jimmy Hoffa?
Related Posts
Unions win, and the Supremes are gonna kick the habit and screw the nuns.
Get used to it, Nino is already sorely missed.
Legal scholar Robert Post years ago offered his deconstruction of Scalia’s judicial ”philosophy“ – which was shown to have been an empty vessel, little more than an intellectual pose (thinly) cloaking an urge to “legislate from the bench” in a manner that accorded as much as possible with Scalia’s own essentially conservative juridical predilections:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/06/11/justice-for-scalia/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR%20Poland%20Scalia%20Coens&utm_content=NYR%20Poland%20Scalia%20Coens+CID_4e340fa2e851b03b57532243a917fccc&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=Justice%20for%20Scalia
And here’s Lawrence Tribe’s examination of Scalia’s often self-contradictory and sometimes “perverse” reading of the Constitution:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/27/the-scalia-myth/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR%20Nina%20Simone%20evictions%20Scalia&utm_content=NYR%20Nina%20Simone%20evictions%20Scalia+CID_204e12728f42553ded2a14758478b5b8&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=The%20Scalia%20Myth
“I see him, with great respect, as a worthy adversary—but an adversary all the same—…..” quote from Tribe’s piece. The other referenced piece by Robert Post is also an opinion piece, coming from another of Scalia’s adversaries. Therefore, what we have is a clash of ideas each predicated on personal opinion and each seeking others to justify their positions when presenting a dissenting point of view. Even Scalia admitted that the Constitution is not always static per the Post piece. But, his raison d’etre and legal background that to me was far superior to either Post or Tribe, was that the Constitution was for the most part, static and not a living, evolving document that could or should be changed simply because society changed. His interpretation was that the Constitution stood the test of time even when society changed and needed to have guiding principles that did not change. Even Scalia understood that freedom of speech had certain limitations, i.e., yelling “fire” in a crowded room or theater is not freedom of speech.
There was no deconstruction of Scalia unless one’s personal opinion and ideological positions are diametrically opposed to Scalia’s. Then one will heartily agree with anything written that supports their strongly held position. Nothing wrong with that except when one will not admit it.
Yeah, well I reckon there are some who probably saw Justice Taney as the towering legal mind of his age. But I expect that in a hundred years’ time, Justice Scalia will be little more than a footnote, not the Constitutional authority that conservatives make him out to be now.
Oh, and just by the way, neither of these articles are “opinion pieces.” They’re lengthy and closely reasoned analyses of Scalia’s judicial “philosophy.”
They are lengthy and closely reasoned analyses of Scalia’s judicial “philosophy” based on the opinions of Tribe and Post whether you agree or not. They did the same thing any attorney will do, find precedent to support their position. Nothing new at all. Scalia was a conservative, Tribe and Post are liberals, they have different ideological and political philosophies. End of story.
Uh- they are opinions. Pretending they aren’t is silly.
Wow- big news- two attorneys with different political views believe Scalia was wrong more often than not.
Where did this shocking revelation come from?
The Newspaper Guild also stepped up and saved my newspaper when Gannett wanted to illegally kill it.