 |
| SCALIA: Couldn't hold on to life long enough |
For
let’s not forget that Scalia served on the University of Chicago Law School
faculty for six years back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and included the
teaching of constitutional law among his workload.
AS
DID OBAMA, who for 12 years in the 1990s and 2000s (while also serving in the
state Legislature) was a senior lecturer at the Hyde Park-based law school who
also took on the occasional constitutional law course amongst his workload.
Yes,
it’s ironic that one law school could produce such divergent ideological
thoughts, even though both men claim the Constitution of the United States to
be the basis upon which they have a philosophy about government.
Scalia,
who served on the nation’s high court for three decades until his death in his
sleep Friday night, was the one who always claimed he was a “strict
constructionist” when it came to ruling on the law.
Meaning
he wanted to think that if it wasn’t specifically addressed in the original document,
it wasn’t fit for him to decide. And naturally, he always managed to come up
with ways in which that document upheld his own socially conservative
ideological beliefs.
OBAMA,
HOWEVER, WAS the guy who early in his presidential campaign took a pot shot at
former President George W. Bush by saying his constitutional law background
meant that, “unlike the (then-)current president, I actually respect the
Constitution.”
Which
he always saw as a document that upheld his own left-leaning ideological
tendencies.
My
own belief is that the U.S. Constitution is neither conservative nor liberal,
and anybody who tries to make it out to be either or is doing a disgrace to
this country. Behaving in a way that truly is un-American.
 |
| OBAMA: Will he be able to pick replacement? |
Which
is why I find it appalling to read the ideological nit-wits who, within hours
of learning of Scalia’s death, were determined to ensure the delay the picking
of a replacement.
SOME
OF THEM say they just don’t want Obama to get to replace a justice who
ideologically was so opposed to him. Others say they want the post to remain
open until the day comes when a president is in place who would guarantee the
choice of someone just like Tony Scalia!
The
simple fact is that the process in place for filling a vacancy says that Obama
gets to do it, with confirmation of the U.S. Senate – some of whose Republican
members already are saying they’re willing to thwart the process and cause
delays.
These
people are upset enough that two high court members owe their appointments to
Obama. Having a third pick (literally one-third of the high court) would really
go a long way toward undoing what may be the most devastating part of the
Reagan presidential legacy – all those ideologically conservative federal
judges picked so as to ensure their way of viewing society would prevail.
After
all, if the high court is rigged in their favor, you can prevent just about
anything from getting through a future Congress or president – regardless of
what they think.
PERSONALLY,
I SUSPECT that Scalia – who was 79 – would have been more than willing to
retire next year IF an ideologically-sympathetic president were elected come
November. A part of me envisions him begging St. Peter in Heaven for just a
couple more years of life so that Obama does NOT get a say in his replacement.
I
won’t be surprised if the final year of the Obama presidency now becomes noted
for the intense gamesmanship that will be played to try to deprive Barack the
ability to fill a high court vacancy.
 |
| A political battle with origins in this Hyde Park-based college. Image provided by Chuckman collection |
And
if, by chance, Obama is able to get the Senate to confirm his high court
nominee, it could wind up being a bigger partisan political ploy than anything
he had to do to get the Affordable Care Act enacted into law.
Although I’m now envisioning the day off
in the future once Obama has departed this realm of existence – will we get a
heavenly debate about Constitutional law from the two Maroons law school types?
That would be a quarrel worth listening to!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment