Justice Antonin Scalia--Right-Wing Bigot

In the case of “Boumediene v. Bush,” handed down June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges. In his angry dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

On June 26, 2008, in the case of “District of Columbia v. Heller,” Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which he struck-down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, stating that the justices were “aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” but held that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

Let us start with Justice Scalia’s dissent in the Boumediene case. By what convoluted logic does he think that giving prisoners a right to appeal to the courts will “cause more Americans to be killed”? Americans are being killed because of the war policies of the Bush Administration, not because of the exercise of constitutional rights by prisoners held in American-controlled prisons.

By what aberration of thinking and humane judgment does Justice Scalia think the “enshrinement of constitutional rights” does not apply to appeals by prisoners but does apply to the right of American citizens to massacre one-another with guns? Which does he think will “cause more Americans to be killed,” appeals to the courts or widespread possession of guns?

In an editorial, The New York Times said of the “District of Columbia v. Heller” case: “This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering, and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.”

Justice Scalia supposedly believes in a so-called “originalist” judicial philosophy. Over the years there have, however, been many inconsistencies in his decisions. He seems to adhere to the originalist philosophy only when it conforms to his right-wing political philosophy. The most consistent thing about his decisions has been his arch-conservative politics. For example, he has said that he does not think that the Eighth Amendment prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” forbids torture.

Although the Supreme Court, in a long string of cases, has recognized a right of privacy enshrined in a “penumbra” of rights granted by the Constitution, Scalia has said that he does not believe that the Constitution guarantees any right to privacy.

One of Scalia’s most flagrant outbursts on this subject was in the case of “Lawrence v. Texas” in which the Supreme Court struck-down the Texas law against sodomy. The majority of the court found that the law, which prohibited homosexual sodomy between consenting adults in the privacy of their home, violated a fundamental right of privacy and served no compelling state interest.

In his angry dissent, Justice Scalia blared: “Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” Scalia went on to say: “It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

So Justice Scalia does not think that homosexuals deserve equal protection under the Constitution of the United States. He does not believe that these people, who number in the millions, are entitled to the same privacy as married couples practicing sexual relations in the privacy of their homes. He would allow state and local governments to hunt these people down, invade their homes, and prosecute them for acting in accordance with their sexual orientation. He would exclude millions of fellow Americans from the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our culture, our constitution, and our sense of decency.

In my opinion, that is more than right-wing dogmatism; it is bigotry.