a head of my own

In recent days I've come across a few quotes by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that frankly left me totally floored. Here's one from this article from The New Yorker:

“The Constitution is not a living organism,” Scalia has said.

This opinion is unfortunately shared on the Supreme Court by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas and I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with them. Here's why.

The American Constitution is such a brilliant document, I cannot imagine its framers meant for us to interpret it not according to the times we live in, but according to those in which it was written. Society changes, people's needs and views change, laws supposedly adapt. Why then, not the Constitution?

Moreover, why stop at the Constitution? If we are supposed to live according to the way the framers thought and lived, then are we supposed to get rid of our cars, electricity, heating and air conditioning, voting rights for blacks and women (which weren't contemplated by the original document), and so forth? God forbid. Then why should we run our lives and business according to the lifestyles of 200 years ago? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course the Constitution is a living organism. How sad it would be, and how miserable would we all be, if it weren't.

And here's another one, this one from latimes.com:

In the blistering dissent, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."

I think I have to agree with Scalia that Coloradans, and whoever else for that matter, are entitled to be hostile toward homosexuals, just as I am entitled to be hostile toward the NRA, the religious right, Bush, Osama bin Laden, and whoever else is hostile towards me or my family and friends. That doesn't mean that that hostility can or should be made into a law, which is precisely what Coloradans had done.

Being entitled to feel hostility toward something or someone is nothing more than a personal feeling, an opinion if you will. There is a big difference between having an opinion (which falls under the protection of the Constitution) and making it the law of the land, so that everyone else now has to obey and live by that opinion.

That's called tyranny.

Alas, Justice Scalia is on his way to become the next Chief Justice if or when Rehnquist quits or dies (which I'm sure Scalia prays for every single day,) and I quiver at the thought of having such a troglodyte sitting on the most important judicial seat in the country.

Some have suggested that his ascension to Chief Justice might actually be a good thing because his opinions will be more widely spread and heard, and so more and more people will be aware of his radicalism. However, the power that comes with being Chief Justice will still be in his hands, and the damage he might do with it far outweighs the benefits of exposing his degenerate mind.