One example of Mr. Scalia’s proclivity to rule in favor of religion over the constitution, and his belief that the beliefs of the majority should overrule those of the majority are reason enough to distrust a Justice who rules by his religion and not constitutionality, using the former to twist and turn the latter into what he wants it to be rather than what it is. That means a Justice who does not feel precedent, if against his personal belief, is an important basis for current issues brought before the Court.
Scalia, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI-
TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[June 27, 2005]
I would uphold McCreary County and Pulaski County, Kentucky’s (hereinafter Counties) displays of the Ten Commandments.
… And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection. Most assert that that protection accords those without religiion protection as well.
“No one was compelled to observe or participate in any religious ceremony or activity. [T]he count[ies] [did not] contribut[e] significant amounts of tax money to serve the cause of one religious faith. [The Ten Commandments] are purely passive symbols of [the religious foundation for many of our laws and governmental institutions].
Passersby who disagree with the message conveyed by th[e] displays are free to ignore them, or even to turn their backs, just as they are free to do when they disagree with any other form of government speech.” 492 U.S., at 664 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
Mr. Scalia has called this “government speech’ which it is but since when is government in the business of speaking on behalf of religion?
Here it isn’t, or so i thought. In Iran, Iraq, etc, there the government is primarily in the business of religious speech.
“The Ten Commandments have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and the formation of our country. That influence is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence, which declared that, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ The Ten Commandments provide the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition.”
I have read the 10 commandments. They do not say include the preamble of the Declaration.
The 10 Commandments are found in the Bible’s Old Testament at Exodus, Chapter 20. They were given directly by God to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai after He had delivered them from slavery in Egypt:
“And God spoke all these words, saying: ‘I am the LORD your God
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’
TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’
THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’
FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’
FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’
Christ’s Summation in the New Testament
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:36-40).
Mr. Scalia’s reading the above into the Declaration is a misstatement of the Commandments and putting them where they are not.
With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief,” Scalia continues in McCreary County, “it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.”
Mr. Scalia ends by saying it is okay to ignore the beliefs of the minority:
Finally, I must respond to Justice Stevens’ assertion that I would “marginaliz[e] the belief systems of more than 7 million Americans” who adhere to religions that are not monotheistic… On the one hand, the interest of that minority in not feeling “excluded”; but on the other, the interest of the overwhelming majority of religious believers in being able to give God thanks and supplication as a people, and with respect to our national endeavors. Our national tradition has resolved that conflict in favor of the majority.8 It is not for this Court to change a disposition that accounts, many Americans think, for the phenomenon remarked upon in a quotation attributed to various authors, including Bismarck, but which I prefer to associate with Charles de Gaulle: “God watches over little children, drunkards, and the United States of America.”
It is this minority that needs to be protected. On his part Justice Scalia feels this group is protected by other laws but in the end it is the minority, specifically in situations of race, creed, and religion that need the protection the most.
The majority has, as we have seen with slavery and the Holocaust, been able to use that majority and protected status to try and stomp out the minority.
This is only one case, of course, but Mr. Scalia’s record speaks for itself.
He is not the devil, he has in other cases not skewered the law and precedent to fit his personal beliefs but all in all, this is a man who is less trustworthy, in his judicial rulings and temperament than what we have seen so far with Mr. Roberts.