Justices Thomas and Scalia have “lavishly” praised their radical leftist activist colleagues.
In repeated recent television appearances, Justices Thomas and Scalia have “lavishly” praised their radical leftist activist colleagues. For example, between them, they have pronounced all justices to be “very good people… honest [and] fair ….try[ing] to get it right” and make the Supreme Court “work.” Justice Kagan was called a “delight.” Ginsburg, although having “some very bad ideas,” was singled out as “very good” and indeed “fabulous,” one who “makes all of us better judges.”
These seemingly reassuring statements are glittering generalities lacking any evidence or explanation of meaning. They provide a grossly misleading impression regarding what justices actually have done, and how that should be evaluated.
Specifically, what differentiates “good” and “bad” people? Is there a difference between bad “ideas” and bad “values”? Is there a point at which bad values make a person bad? Does sincerely “trying to get it right” make a judge “good” and “fabulous”? Should officeholders be evaluated in a vacuum divorced from the disastrous consequences of their official actions based on “bad ideas”? Why is it good to make the Court “work,” if doing so causes great harm?
Above all, is the televised off-the-cuff warm oral praise by Thomas and Scalia supported by their considered written words in official Supreme Court opinions?
The writings of Thomas and Scalia themselves are the most powerful evidence of how unwarranted is their gushing televised praise of fellow justices. Repeatedly, they have questioned the integrity of their colleagues; and accused them of arrogance, lawlessness, license, illegitimate abuse of power, basing decisions on no more than their own personal values, contempt for the Constitution, sowing confusion rather than providing clarity, hypocritically pretending to defend the weak against the powerful while actually favoring the powerful at the expense of the weak, protecting “inconsequential” expression while disdaining the “heart” of the first amendment (the right to criticize officeholders), poisonous and pernicious racism and sexism, belief in black inferiority, jeopardizing the lives of good innocent people in order to save the lives of the most vicious and depraved, placing the welfare of terrorists above the lives of soldiers combatting them, mandating “infanticide” (the barbaric killing of “human children”), and other sins too numerous to discuss here.
To say the least, these are very strange criteria for “good … honest … fabulous” justices.
It may be said that it is unrealistic to expect Thomas and Scalia to sharply criticize in public those with whom they must work. (If so, that is a one-way street.) But even if they deem it inappropriate to be publicly negative about other justices, there is certainly no reason for them to give lay people the idea that rabid leftist judicial ideologues are fantastic rather than destructive, if not worse. This can only lend unmerited legitimacy to an institution infected by rampant judicial arrogance, dishonesty and abuse of power.
In turn, this is a grave disservice to the cause of constitutional government to which the best justices have been so otherwise tirelessly dedicated.
This prelude will be explained and documented in a forthcoming series of articles. Stay tuned.