Scalia v. Truth
Posted by MEC on June 27, 2008
Antonin Scalia seems determined to demonstrate a disregard for judicial propriety and the truth both on and off the bench.
In his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush, Scalia asserted that granting the detainees the right of habeus corpus “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” because “at least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield.” That assertion is patently false.
Scalia also uses lies to justify the decision in Bush v. Gore, repeating the canard that Richard Nixon graciously conceded the 1960 election in spite of evidence that vote fraud boosted Kennedy’s total. As David Greenberg detailed, however, Nixon only gave the appearance of accepting the outcome; behind the scenes, he authorized and encouraged other Republicans to challenge the outcome: “The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result.”
It’s not just his dishonesty that makes Scalia’s decisions so shameful. It’s the evidence that Scalia bases his decisions not on the Constitution but on his personal opinions. In his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush, Scalia cites his belief about the possible consequences. In Bush v. Gore, it seems he based his decision on his disapproval of Al Gore. And he claims he bases his decisions on Original Intent? Nothing could be further from the truth.
Charles II said
And we’re about to find out whether guns as an individual right leads to much of anything more than distraught homeowners, vets, and retirees holding their families and neighborhoods hostage because, after all, they have a right to do so.