The Flip Side of Hiding the Supreme Court Conservatives’ Non-Logic underneath a Layer of Apparently Reasoned Analysis — as Chief Justice Roberts Did in regard to Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act — Is Justice Scalia’s Obvious Inability to Maintain His Mental Faculties, while Writing about the Majority’s Somewhat Reasoned Trashing of the Defense of Marriage Act — Taken together, both Opinions’ Legal Styles Highlight Why “Conservative” — Used in Conjunction with “Supreme Court Justice” — Is Likely to Mean Bigoted, Power-Hungry, and Duplicitous

© 2013 Peter Free

 

28 June 2013

 

 

The Supreme Court is probably a necessary institutional evil, but it gets too much intellectual respect — given how badly some of its members behave

 

Two convenient examples surfaced this week.

 

First, a couple of days ago, I pointed out that the Court’s charmingly smarmy conservative Chief Justice had managed to pull a fast one on both Reason and the American public with his pretend reasoning in overturning the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirement.

 

Second, when the equally divided Court came out on the “liberal” side — as it eviscerated the Defense of Marriage Act — Justice Scalia’s incoherent dissent exemplified the kind of visceral non-reason that frequently motivates the Court’s allegedly conservative justices.

 

Note

 

If you do not want to read Justice Scalia’s dissent directly — an understandable wish, given how poorly it is written and reasoned — skim the following lay articles:

 

Ryan Grim, Scalia Slams 'Legalistic Argle-Bargle,' Re-Argues 'Homosexual Sodomy' In Dissenting DOMA Rant, Huffington Post (26 June 2013)

 

Darren Samuelsohn, Justice Antonin Scalia brings drama to DOMA ruling, Politico (27 June 2013)

 

Sahil Kapur, Scalia Rages Against Supreme Court’s Gay Rights Ruling, TPM (26 June 2013)

 

Josh Gad, DOMA is the end of Scalia's gay (happy) reign, USA Today (27 June 2013)

 

Interestingly, the often entertaining Justice Scalia is apparently so afraid of being sodomized in one of Hell’s Circles — that he sodomizes Rationality, whenever he puckers up in anticipation of receiving his arguably just dues.

 

Taken together:

 

Chief Justice Roberts’ disingenuous opinion in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder

 

and

 

Justice Scalia’s tediously rambling and emotional dissent in U.S. v. Windsor, Executor of the Estate of Spyer

 

explain why I have such a hard time crediting the Court’s “conservatives” with anything other than Machiavellian deception, irrational bile, bigotry, and (virtually always) blatant power-mongering.

 

I have come to expect nothing of stellar intellectual merit from the Block of Four and certainly little of genuinely American democratic worth.

 

This is not a group willing to play by the rules that they purport to support.  In their impenetrable hypocrisy, they exactly mirror the plutocratic elite that runs the country to its own self-interested benefit.

 

If remembered by legal historians at all, Chief Justice Roberts will probably come to represent the pudgy face of White Supremacy and Justice Scalia the face of an entertaining, but demented medieval Court jester.  Justice Thomas will be seen as White Repression’s token black.  And Justice Alito merely as an uncivil sheep, struggling to emerge from the dark shadows cast by the other three.

 

 

The moral? — As American demographic change begins to lap at the Block of Atavists’ feet, its too frequent departures from genuinely reasoned jurisprudence will only increase

 

Power hungry crybabies have a difficult time letting go of the blanket of their nasty illusions and insincere ploys.

 

Hopefully, the demographics of humanity’s happily mixed colors will eventually wash abiding memory of these distasteful reactionaries out of our legal culture.