Monday, February 15, 2016

Antonin Scalia

I think the one thing that reverberates to me when I consider engaging in some sort of political argument is the following from Scalia:
What I do wish is that we were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we’re doing when we interpret the Constitution. I mean, that’s sort of rudimentary. It’s sort of an embarrassment, really, that we’re not. But some people think our job is to keep it up to date, give new meaning to whatever phrases it has. And others think it’s to give it the meaning the people ratified when they adopted it. Those are quite different views.
Say what you will about the overall dysfunction of polticians and our political process, but I think most people would agree that the Supreme Court appointment represents a high degree of knowledge and understanding of some reasonably complex topics -- that anyone that rises to this level has enough brains to noodle through the major issues of the day. The fact that there are (at least) two opposite and competing understandings of such a basic tenet doesn't mean we should shout and give up hope, or that the republic's days are numbered, but it does argue that you are unlikely to win that facebook argument you're in the middle of.

No comments: