The Good, The Bad, and Justice Scalia

Observations on the Supreme Court:

1) Tonight I had a chance to catch part of a speech on C-SPAN. Normally, I avoid this channel like it's my job, but this was a speech by Supreme Court Justice Scalia, and it was really entertaining. I was really shocked by two things-Scalia's constant impatience with the crowd (interrupting, refusing to answer questions, etc.) and the rudeness of so many of the people who came to hear him speak. One student made some lame joke about Scalia going duck hunting with Vice President Cheney; another held on to the mic for several minutes, rambling about nothing before it was ripped away from him.

I just have two questions for anyone who acts like a 2-year-old at these events: how did you get invited, and how were you smart enough, and so uncouth, as to get into law school in the first place? I have to admit that it's funny to watch a kid who looks like Napoleon Dynamite get manhandled and thrown out into the hallway, but to treat any guest like that, particularly a Supreme Court justice, is idiotic and way out of line. Sometimes it worries me to think that these people are going to be my colleagues before long.

By the way....I'm a conservative and I tend to agree more with Scalia's point of view on a lot of issues, but I do think that he tends to invite confrontation with his rhetoric. Calling people who believe in a living Constitution "idiots" recently, even at a Federalist Society meeting, almost seems to egg these losers on.

2) The Court has decided to take up partial birth abortion again, in Gonzales v. Carhart. Just as a background, the Court ruled on partial birth abortion back in 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down a similar ban for not providing an exception for the mother's health. There had been a ban on partial-birth abortion, and President Bush signed a national ban into law in 2003, but trial judges in New York, Nebraska, and California ruled it unconstitutional. Now the Court is ready to hear the case again, this time with Roberts and Alito in for Rehnquist and O'Connor.

I believe the Court is going to uphold the ban as constitutional. Justice O'Connor was the swing vote last time, and Justice Alito, her successor, is probably not going to rule the same way, if his opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood was any indication. Roberts is still a relative unknown, but I think his vote will be an even match for Rehnquist. If everyone else keeps the same vote, this ban is going to stick around in a 5-4 ruling.

My feeling is that pro-choicers are going to take the loss on this one. And I couldn't be more glad to get rid of partial-birth abortion. It's cruel, barbaric, and unnecessary, and there is something seriously wrong with our values when we allow late-term infanticide, but a rapist-killer in California doesn't get executed because he might feel as much pain as a booster shot.

3) Maybe I'm wrong, but is partial-birth abortion not the only issue where a "red herring" comes into the decision-making processes of these judges? Is it a red herring, or does the health of the mother really matter? And I don't mean that judges don't apply the law and legal reasoning, just that sometimes I think all this about "an exception for the mother's health" or "saving the mother's life" just ends up being a proxy for the real cultural divide. And I don't think anyone, not even the Supreme Court, can bring those two sides together right now.