A One-Eyed Man Amongst the Blind

The King is Dead

It is with great sadness that Contra Celsum notes the passing of US Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia.  We well remember his visits to Auckland, NZ in 1999 and 2004.  He has been lionised as the leader of the conservative justices on the US Supreme Court--their intellectual champion, their leader, and their mentor.  A giant, some have said.

We suspect that such praise is hyperbolic.  We suspect that Scalia himself would have thought so.  The fact remains that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.  Scalia was the one eyed man amongst a Court stacked with the blind.  We do not mean to imply that the "liberal lions" of the Court (Ginsburg, Kennedy, etc.) are dumb.  Rather that they cling to an epistemology that is so idiotic, so myopic that all it takes is for someone to state the obvious, like the boy who pointed out the sartorial inadequacies of the emperor, to be  seen as profound and far-seeing.

Scalia was the exponent of "originalism" when it came to interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.  The original intent and meaning of the actual text, to be discovered by studying the text in its Sitz im Leben--its "Situation in Life"--once uncovered would help us in applying the text appropriately to the modern world.
 Tools such as an exegesis of the actual text (grammatical and syntactical analysis) and research into the writings of the framers of the Constitution and its amendments, along with the common cultural understanding and use of language at the time are all helpful tools in discovering the original meaning of the text as written.

Now we hear you saying that if that is what Scalia represented--and it is--there is nothing particularly shattering about his approach.  One might even say it represents common sense.  Surely all Justices on the bench would follow such a rigorous exegetical process because it is the duty of Supreme Court Justices to decide whether matters brought before its bench are in compliance, or in agreement, with the Constitution.  To fulfil this obligation necessarily presupposes a clear understanding of what the Constitution says, and what it means by what it says.

But no.  For decades the Supreme Court has been bedevilled by blind justices who think that  what the original framers, writers, and users of the Constitution meant by what is written is without merit or relevance.  What is important, in their view, is what moderns think the Constitution ought to mean by what it says.  This approach, you will hasten to tell us, turns the Constitution into a wax nose, a document which reflects the lusts and passions of the moment, not timeless truth to bind generations and centuries of citizens. And you would be right.

Never was the division between the Originalists and the Blind so on display over the infamous decision taken recently to declare that the Constitution of the United States accommodated the notion that marriage could include  homosexuals taking vows of lifelong or temporary association.  Clearly the writers and framers of the Constitution meant no such thing at all. But modern society thinks that it ought to have meant that: therefore the meaning of the Constitution must be wax-nosed into conformity with modern lusts.

It has rapidly become obvious that marriage as a concept and societal bond is now without meaning throughout the United States--at least in the councils and counsels of Unbelief .  Why would it have meaning where, provided you can cause sufficient ruckus, you may move the Supreme Court to declare that the relationship of a lesbian and a budgie could lawfully and constitutionally be considered a marriage.  "I protest", say the liberals.  "The Court has never made such a proclamation.  It has not had enough time to consult the feelings and opinions of budgies on the matter."  Too true.  But once there is a sufficiently vocal subset of lesbians lusting after budgies, the thing will be done and dusted.  The Constitution will have been interpreted as permitting the concept of marriage to expand to include human-avian alliances.

The vibe of the moment determines the vibe of the original document.  Or, the meaning of the Constitution is what we say it is right now.  Tomorrow, who can tell what it may "say".  Meaning has no meaning any longer.
Scalia spent all his time on the Supreme Court skewering this stuff and nonsense.  We honour him for his integrity and his truthfulness.

He famously was asked how he could keep writing dissenting judgements, and yet remain even tempered, merry, and without bitterness.  Losing, after all--and he lost many more cases than he won--is normally dispiriting and enervating.  He replied that it was not the case.  He was writing for the future, for a time when the lunacies and emptiness of the position of his opponents would become evident for all to see.  He believed that his famous dissenting judgements would provide much help to a future, more Christian nation.  We believe, in this, he will be proved right.  In the long arc of history, Scalia will be on the winning side.

A king has passed from amongst the blind into eternity.  We regret and mourn his passing.