Supreme Prejudice: Scalia Says Government Can Promote Religion

The U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up to come back into session Oct. 5, and just in time for that, Justice Antonin Scalia has decided to pop off in the media about how much he hates church-state separation - again!

In what is billed as an "Historic Exclusive Interview" in the Brooklyn-based Orthodox Jewish newspaper Hamodia, Scalia attacks one of the core concepts of church-state separation - the idea that government must remain neutral between religion and non-religion.




To Scalia, this is all stuff and nonsense. He believes the government should be able to prefer religion. Government neutrality on religious matters, he says, "is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe."

Scalia goes on to assert that in the 1960s and `70s, when the high court was much more separationist than it is now, it was in fact "hostile" to religion.

"I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life," he observes.

Admittedly, I don't move in Scalia's rarefied circles, but I see little evidence of God being driven out of public life. It's true that government is not supposed to promote religion, but people still can - and they do.

Scalia denies that his personal religious views have influenced the way he votes, but then he cuts loose with this gem: "There is a quote attributed to various people from Bismarck down to Charles de Gaulle. I prefer to attribute it to Charles de Gaulle because it sounds like him. `God protects,' he said, `little children, drunkards and the United States of America.' I think it may be true. And the reason may be because we honor Him as a nation. We invoke Him in our country, our Presidents invoke Him, my court open its sessions with `God save the United States.' Those things are not insignificant." (...)

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/9/24/111742/739

Original:

http://www.hamodia.com/inthepaper.cfm?ArticleID=370

get off the Court and join the Palin speech circuit. Actually, after those comments he must recuse himself from any cases involving the separation of Church and State.

"He can suck my pathetic little dick, and I'll dip my nuts in marinara sauce just so the fat bastard can get a taste of home while he's at it."

He's an incredibly arrogant bastard, isn't he? He always makes it clear that he rules from his own gut and not the law.

Hekate

We have at least 12 more years of his influence.

Doesn't Antonin GET that statement? It's a fucking insult!
It says we're as naive and helpless as little children and as stupifyingly stupid as drunks!
Well, that's the way I read it, anyway. Gee, I wish they'd borked this guy. What an arrogant fathead.

condescension and disbelief.

Not an insult. Do we typically insult little kids?

It was said at a time when the US would do something incredibly stupid, brazen, naive, or even ridiculous. Nonetheless, the US usually came out of it smelling like roses, to the chagrin and dismay of older, wiser, more sage diplomat corps who had predicted failure and could only look upon a long string of surprise successes as either extreme luck, American wisdom and know-how, or divine intervention.

Note that it was the end product that counted--purity of motive and means was not especially relevant in those less enlightened days.

Now we consider these things referred to be simply stupid, brazen, naive, or ridiculous, and talk about them in those terms and worse. Usually the way we talk about it has more to do with politics than an honest appraisal. Or, rather, the only honest appraisal is one that serves politics, which amounts to saying the same thing.

Personally, often the "God protects/looks after/watches after" formulation strikes me as less insulting. At least they weren't so cynical as to fail to be dismayed, or to feel that it was necessary to dwell on how bad the motives or methods were in order to say that they weren't actually achievements. And, in any event, the "God looks after" is a fairly common formulation in some circles. With the right tone of voice it can become insulting, but that can be said about many things that aren't usually insulting.

He's been saying this for years in decisions, largely in dissents (now that's a toe-curling thought -- it's been rightwing justices on a largely conservative court who've been protecting us from Mad Tony).

The only reason this troll collects a paycheck is because Democrats ceded to manipulative Republican framing long ago. Liberals are "judicial activists" who "legislate from the bench" and conservatives are "originalists" who follow "strict construction". The choice is pretty clear, do you want someone who follows the letter of the Constitution or someone who uses it like Play-doh?

And I'm not so concerned about his personal feelings about religion at the moment. I want to know what he thinks of corporations constitutional *rights*.

You already know which way that demented gnome and his "whut he said" sockpuppet Thomas will go. The real problem is Roberts. He scheduled a special hearing on what is really a tangential issue in a case. The fact that he did this is a pretty good indication he wants to fast track ruling on corporate personhood, and it won't be in our favor. Alito's almost certainly in the bag, which leaves Kennedy as swing. Again. Kennedy, the fatuous idiot who accepted Bush v Gore, then spent the rest of the time hand-wringing over what he'd done. He spent so much time in sweaty vaccillation, Souter is positive he could've swung him to Gore if he'd had just another 24 hours. That guy. Jeebus help us.

The sad fact is, recent courts have been some of the most corporate friendly in modern history. Decades ago, we had justices with a healthy skepticism of business in polity. Not today, in either the so-called left wing of the court or the right.

trickle down liberty. It will be disastrous for our nation. I'm sure you know that.

The IRC 107 suit may be a good vehicle to test what has been said about the Judge.

See the 70-549 subject thread here for more details.

Hopefully, the case will soon be filed and speedily make its way through the judiciary and find itself before the Supreme Court for a final determination on its merits.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

one in the hospital and not Ginsburg.

The text of the Constitution is the only thing that matters. Scalia has said this in dozens of opinions.

The First Amendment prohibits any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Either that means the government cannot favor religion over non-religion, or it means something short of that. There is no amorphous 'tradition' or 'what the American people believe' in this debate. That is precisely the kind of sloppy thinking that Scalia rails against, and here he promulgates it with his smug pretense of moral superiority.

To me, it is rather obvious that things like putting God on our money and having chaplains in Congress violate the Establishment Clause. Nothing Scalia says justifies those things.

That would be strict constructionism, but of an ahistorical variety.

I rather like that the "wall of separation" was applied first and foremost to whether or not TJ would declare a day of national thanksgiving. TJ said he couldn't, since he lacked the authority to declare such a day without Congressional blessing, and that Congress had no authority to confer such authority.

How things have changed.

But it means that Thanksgiving Day is inherently unconstitutional. And yet, there it is.

...and Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington and Franklin were wrong.