Boom? Souter takes on Scalia in a speech.

[Are_grits_groceries]

David Souter vs. the Antonin Scalias
It should become the philosophical shot heard 'round the country. In a remarkable speech that received far too little attention, former Supreme Court justice David Souter took direct aim at the conservatives' favorite theory of judging.

Souter's verdict: It "has only a tenuous connection to reality."

At issue is "originalism," an approach to reading the Constitution whose seeming precision has given conservatives a polemical advantage over the liberals' "living Constitution" idea that appears to let judges say our founding document means whatever they want it to mean.

Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's leading orginalist, summarized his opponents' attitude toward the Constitution with four words: "You know, it morphs."

Now, thanks to Souter's commencement address at Harvard last week, Scalia's critics have fighting words of their own. Souter, who did not mention Scalia by name, underscored "how egregiously it misses the point to think of judges in constitutional cases as just sitting there reading constitutional phrases fairly and looking at reported facts objectively to produce their judgments."

There's more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060203496.html

I can't imagine a more scathing comment on a philosphy:
'It "has only a tenuous connection to reality."'

That is a comment that Souter would not make while a sitting justice. He is obviously not of the same judicial temperment as Scalia to say the least. That he would even say such a thing in a speech now is remarkable.

I believe that Souter had much more respect for what the Supreme Court represents than Scalia ever will.
Scalia's sarcastic attacks on the judgement of his fellow Justices brings the level of the discourse down a great deal. He can't argue without degrading someone.

I said 'Boom???' because I don't believe Souter's speech was heard loudly enough.

[Syrinx]

1. k&r

[aquart]

2. "Which approach is the more trustworthy?" Gorgeous.

Does anyone think Scalia agrees with Brown v. Board of Education?

[ThomWV]

8. Amazing that you had to read 2 pages to find the one sentence that made a point.

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Haaay, scopilo. Scowl." - Fat Tony (R - Corporatist)

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. heh! nt

[xchrom]

4. Exact right turn of phrase. Nt

[struggle4progress]

5. An excellent speech

Text of Justice David Souter’s speech
Harvard Commencement remarks (as delivered)
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. Thanks for posting that! nt

[voteearlyvoteoften]

9. rec

[robertpaulsen]

10. K & R! Well worth reading.

:kick:

[one_voice]

11. K & R....

bookmarked to read when I'm not so tired.

[Senator]

12. Judiciously Phrased But Spot On: Nino is Demonstrably Mental

The similarity between Scalia's written opinions and the "writings" of victims of schizophrenia are quite striking. It virtually always consists of some not-quite-incoherent mental gymnastics attempting to prop up a preconceived notion/conclusion.

The other apropos phrase I've seen was Linda Greenhouse's reporting on the BushvGore treason "deliberations" as "http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/us/bush-v-gore-a-special-report-election-case-a-test-and-a-trauma-for-justices.html?pagewanted=all">a conclusion in search of a rationale." It's Nino's MO.

Much of the DC/Euphemedia Avaristocracy internalize the neo-fascist mantra of Scalia's "brilliance" simply because he writes a lot of words that they never bother to actually read. Remember, among the beltway-blind, repetition/quantity substitute for veracity/quality. (There's similar mass meme-delusion around the crone Babara Bush as "beloved.")

Souter's speech may well be the first step toward legal historians eventually exposing this horrific reality -- Scalia's detachment from it.

---