I read a blurb about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's "textualist" interpretation of the Constitution, which he says makes it easy for him to vote against gays and women. The problem is that he is inconsistent. Abortion, gay rights--sure, Scalia, we know your reasoning, "textualism." What about marijuana prohibition? Antonin Scalia, unlike some of his conservative colleagues on the bench, has consistently voted in favor of the government harassing, arresting and prosecuting marijuana users and manufacturers. But the Constitution was written on marijuana, and many of the signers were themselves farmers and users of marijuana, and there were no laws against marijuana for over 100 years. It looks to me like Scalia is picking and choosing the laws to which he will apply his "textualist" interpretation. Perhaps "textualism" is a synonym for "homophobia." The bottom line is that if gay rights and abortion rights are nixed, then by the same logic so is Prohibition, or else Scalia's not telling the whole truth about his philosophy as a jurist.
No comments:
Post a Comment