God's Justice and Ours [Antonin Scalia on capital punishment]

First Things ^ | 5/02 | Antonin Scalia

[onedoug]

The death penalty is immoral when those of wealth and/or celebrity are exempt from it,
as is the case here in the United States.

[gdani]

I often hear Scalia talking about a constitutional "right to privacy" (in non-abortion situations) yet I see no mention of such a right in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps he believes more in the "living Constitution" idea then he cares to let on.

[Caleb1411]

The death penalty is immoral when those of wealth and/or celebrity are exempt from it, as is the case here in the United States.

If not the penalty itself, the subjectively capricious imposition of the penalty is certainly immoral.

[spqrzilla9]

Justice Scalia demonstrates why his is among the finest legal minds in our country.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Scalia

[BOBTHENAILER]

if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”

Al Gore used those exact words during one of the debates with Bush. That, folks, is how scary it could have been. Al's feeling that the Constitution is a "living document", subject to the whims of interpretation (liberal) is way too dangerous for me.

[Caleb1411]

I often hear Scalia talking about a constitutional "right to privacy" (in non-abortion situations) yet I see no mention of such a right in the Bill of Rights.

That could be a worrisome thing. Do you have links to any web-published remarks by Scalia on that "right"? I'd be interested in reading what he's said.

[Tourist Guy]

>>>Capital cases are much different from the other life–and–death issues that my Court sometimes faces:
abortion, for example<<<

Hold on, there is a question of death with abortion?
We've been told it is just a blob of tissue.

/sarcasm

[apochromat]

Maybe ex-agent Hanssen should get a copy of this...

[Caleb1411]

What a difference an apostophe apparently makes. I typed "God's Justice and Ours" into the FReep searcher and didn't get a match.

[apochromat]

Opposing the right to privacy is the right to corrodable bureaucracy.

[gdani]

That could be a worrisome thing. Do you have links to any web-published remarks by Scalia on that "right"? I'd be interested in reading what he's said.

I have to bow out (end of work day).

But, if you were to ask him, I'm sure Scalia would frame it as falling under the Fourth Amendment, which was his rationale in the Supreme Court's decision in the Kyollo (thermal-imaging/pot-growing) case in which he wrote the Majority Opinion.

I'm sure a gleaning of his opinions re: the Fourth Amendment will find him opining frequently about the "right to privacy (but it's the weekend and I ain't doing the research right now.....)

[scalia_#1]

Do you have links to any web-published remarks by Scalia on that "right"? I'd be interested in reading what he's said.

I wouldn't mind seeing them, either. It certainly wasn't here: Troxel v. Granville, Scalia, J., dissenting

[Caleb1411]

Hold on, there is a question of death with abortion? We've been told it is just a blob of tissue.

One Justice came belatedly to that knowledge. See Hadley Arkes' Harry Blackmun, RIP -- And May He Now Know Better

[onedoug]

Agree. As is the case here in the United States.

[Caleb1411]

[from the Scalia dissent you linked:] If we embrace this unenumerated right, I think it obvious–whether we affirm or reverse the judgment here, or remand as Justice Stevens or Justice Kennedy would do–that we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.

Scalia sure doesn't sound like a proponent of a "living Constitution" here. But I'm an untutored layman, so if anyone can cite hard evidence to the contrary, I'll read it.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

That's why it's always best not to search on an exact match; typos, etc. but to match on any word.

First Things spelled it incorrectly anyway: God's (God is) Justice and Ours should be Gods Justice and Ours since it is His(possessive) justice. The headline editor either screwed up the contraction or didn't catch the authors mistake. I don't think Neuhaus was educated in a parochial school since he is a convert so he might have a defense owing to extenuating circumstances.

[Caleb1411]

I agree with the former (your search suggestion), but I have to take small issue on the latter. Grammar texts (including the one I'm looking at right now: McDougall Littell's The Writer's Craft, p. 802) state, "Use the apostrophe to form the possessive of singular and plural nouns." The exception would be personal pronouns: hers, ours, theirs, etc. The rule you cited follows on page 804: "Use the apostrophe in contractions to show where letters have been omitted."

[scalia_#1]

I've never read a Scalia opinion that invoked the 'right to privacy' except to deride it. If I have read it, I don't remember it. I'm willing to be corrected, though.