Justice Antonin Scalia
February 14, 2016
MAY Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died this weekend at a resort in Texas, rest in peace. Scalia suffered many defeats, but was an influential intellectual force who strove mightily for the impossible and defended doomed, outdated ideas such as that a man should not marry a man.
May Constitutionalism, a cause which Scalia upheld against the tide, also rest in peace.
Constitutionalism is the view that the original intention of the American Founders should be upheld by jurists. It is a dead cause. The Supreme Court, influenced for much of its history by the anti-Christian philosophy of Freemasonry, is the leading enforcer of practical atheism, of causes and federal interventions that the Founders never would have embraced. No matter who is appointed in Scalia’s place, that fact will not change.
If you want to get a sense of what a theocratic bogeyman Scalia, who was Catholic, is believed to have been by many, read the comments at The New York Times. They’re scary. Americans are so unschooled in the basics of religion, many believe that Scalia, who publicly distanced himself from Catholic teaching on the proper relation between Church and state, personified theocratic tyranny and was the embodiment of the Christian Taliban.
Dr. Thomas Droleskey writes at Christ or Chaos:
Please pray for the soul of Justice Scalia. He tried to defend the original meaning of the Constitution as explained by the men who wrote its text. Alas, his efforts to do so were undermined by the simple fact that a document that admits of no higher authority than its own text will become as much of a plaything in the hands of legal positivists as is Sacred Scripture in the hands of Protestants and modernist Catholics.
James Kalb wrote in his book Tyranny of Liberalism:
Decades of failure and retreat suggest fundamental weaknesses in constitutionalism. Something more substantive than respect for prior agreement and written law is needed to maintain a somewhat traditional order. A document can help articulate an order, but it cannot serve as its basis. Written constitutions have to be interpreted in a way that seems sensible to those who govern through them: they cannot stand against general trends in political thought and practice. Interpretive agencies eventually follow whatever view of politics and political reason is dominant among articulate elites, and they interpret the constitution accordingly. A written constitution is very likely to be captured by the dominant view and made its tool; indeed its is very likely to serve as a means of putting that view into effect all the more thoroughly. If the readings needed to yield results that seem right are improbable, they will nevertheless be adopted.
(The Tyranny of Liberalism, ISI Books, 2008; p. 171. Emphasis added.)
