By John Lawrence
The man who gave us Citizens United and Bush vs Gore is gone from the face of the earth. I for one do not mourn his passing. His decisions have not only contributed to the destruction of the US, but major portions of the world as well, and he was set to destroy the world consensus on climate change which would have destroyed the entire planet.
It was Scalia who said that unlimited corporate campaign spending is something “we should celebrate rather than condemn,” (Citizens United), that vote-counting should be halted for causing “irreparable harm” to the candidate who might lose as a result (Bush v. Gore), that protecting the right to vote is an odious example of “racial entitlements” (comments related to Shelby County v. Holder), and that allowing local anti-discrimination laws to protect gays and lesbians amounts to “special treatment of homosexuals” (Romer v. Evans), the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms just to name a few of the highlights of his ignominious career.
The Supreme Court was all set to doom President Obama’s climate deal he made in Paris. That would have meant that the deal established in COP21 would have fallen apart in the rest of the world as well. If the biggest polluter (the US) couldn’t uphold its end of the deal, why should any other country?
Scalia and the 4 Conservatives on the Court Decided a Presidential Election
They appointed George W Bush President. This was the most disastrous decision in US history both from the point of view of Bush’s Iraq War which destroyed the lives and property of millions of men, women and children and the 2008 financial crisis which almost brought down the economy of the entire world.
In the 2000 Presidential election they chose Bush over Gore even though, if the election had been allowed to proceed, Gore would have won. Not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by the five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States. If the election had been allowed to proceed, world history would have been radically changed for the better. And the world would be better off in its ability to fight climate change about which Gore was a proponent and an expert. Scalia and his fellow conservatives were all set to destroy Obama’s initiative at COP21, the recent Paris summit.
Scalia’s decision to railroad Bush into the Presidency was made according to him “for the good of the people.” But was it? Look what we got. A President who ignored warnings of Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US in his presidential daily briefings followed shortly by 9/11. Then Bush lied the US into a war in Iraq presumably on the grounds of the existence of weapons of mass destruction that didn’t actually exist. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children including both Americans and Iraqis was the consequence of that.
The power vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam in Iraq was filled by ISIS, the largest terrorist organization the world has ever known. Their attempts to take over real estate in Syria has directly resulted in the Syrian refugee crisis that has overwhelmed Europe as well as the destruction of countless lives and property in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The next horror that Bush presided over was the financial crisis of 2008 which almost inundated the entire world economy, resulted in driving a greater wedge between the 1% and the 99% and increased the inequality gap. The banks got bailed out, and the people got stuck with the bills both as taxpayers and mortgagees. Bush presided over not only the collapse and utter destruction of the middle east but also the collapse of the world economy and the 9/11 debacle.
Between the destruction of lives and real estate in the middle east, the destruction of the world economy and not keeping the US safe from the 9/11 attack (by the way Trump is right about that), Scalia’s decision to install George W Bush in the American Presidency was one of the worst in American and world history.
Scalia’s death has given the world a reprieve from his terrible decisions among the worst of which was the appointment and installation of George W Bush as President.
Scalia and Supreme Court Conservatives Were Set to Doom Obama’s Climate Change Initiative
American leadership on the Paris COP21 deal was and still is paramount and vital. Without it the whole accord would have fallen like a house built on sand in an earthquake. President Obama planned to implement the American part of the deal through an executive order since the Republican Congress has been against everything he stands for from Day 1 and has done everything within its power to humiliate, emasculate, belittle and demean him and turn his Presidency into a complete and utter shambles. Through it all President Obama has acted like a complete and respectful gentleman despite the enormous pressure put upon him. Scalia and his conservatives on the totally politicized and ideologically based Supreme Court decided to put a halt to Obama’s climate change plan until they took their good time in getting around to considering and probably defeating it.
Initially, Obama was optimistic about the results of COP21:
He said, “The Paris agreement establishes the enduring framework the world needs to solve the climate crisis. It creates the mechanism, the architecture, for us to continually tackle this problem in an effective way.”
“I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world,” Obama said, calling the agreement “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”
The accord achieved one major goal. It limits average global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures and strives for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) if possible.
What Exactly did Obama Commit the US to in COP21?
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, an Environmental Protection Agency rule designed to cut carbon emissions from power plants, is the centerpiece of Obama’s climate agenda and a major part of the US pledge to reduce emissions as part of the Paris deal.
Power plants will have to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 32% compared to 2005 levels by 2030. He also committed the US to cutting its emissions from all sources of pollution, including cars and trucks by 26 to 28 percent by 2030, compared to 2005.
Then Republicans and a bunch of southern states set out to doom Obama’s climate deal and with it the chances to curtail global warming for the rest of the world. From the New York Times:
Hours after President Obama pledged Tuesday in Paris that the United States would be in the vanguard of nations seeking a global response to climate change, Congress approved two measures aimed at undercutting him.
In a provocative message to more than 100 leaders that the American president does not have the full support of his government on climate policy, the House passed resolutions, already approved by the Senate, to scuttle Environmental Protection Agency rules that would significantly cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from existing and future coal-fired power plants.
The House votes — by 242 to 180 and 235 to 188, mostly along party lines — expanded to a global level the already profound gulf between Mr. Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress on domestic issues, demonstrating that the United States was hardly unified on the issue of climate change even as the president and other leaders sought to project solidarity.
When the EPA published the rule in October 2015, it was met with a wave of lawsuits from states, energy companies and interest groups looking to stop it. Judges declined to issue a temporary hold on the rule before the Paris conference, but if the courts stop it in 2016, Republicans say, that would be a sign to the rest of the world that the U.S. can’t meet its climate commitments.
On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review. It was assumed that whenever the Supremes got around to reviewing it, it would be rejected by them because of the 5-4 Republican majority on the Court. Now because of Scalia’s death, there is not a Republican majority on the Court – there is a 4-4 stand-off – and it is likely that Obama’s Clean Power Act will prevail.
Scalia was an unvarnished, intemperate and intolerant ideologue. He was intent on undoing every vestige of progressive legislation the Court had approved from time immemorial. His henchmen were the Republican Senate. Together they did their best to thwart Obama at every turn and turn his Presidency into a mishmash of failures. They worked in conjunction with each other to disparage, denigrate and belittle the President. Their agendas were the same as the Koch brothers and other extreme right wingers.
Scalia used his position on the Supreme Court to attempt to destroy a Presidency and everything it stood for. All I can say is Sayonara Scalia, and maybe now some sanity can be restored to the Supreme Court whether by President Obama or the next Democratic President of the United States. It’s worth a huge fight to get the right man or woman on this totally politicized Supreme Court. Let’s face it; it’s more a matter of their progressive or conservative credentials than it is of the brilliance of their legal intellect.
John Lawrence
Latest posts by John Lawrence (see all)
- Economist Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate, Dead at 95 - March 22, 2017
- Container Ships Burn Dirtiest Fuel: the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Could Change That - March 15, 2017
- Cities and States Prefer Public Banks To Wall Street - March 7, 2017
I don’t always agree with you and mostly get on your case for some of your rants but I have to say that I actually completely agree with you 100% this time. Scalia is the architect of the ruination of our country and he will not be missed in the least except as an example to the rest of the country as what to not look for in a Supreme Court Justice. Clarence Thomas must be next to depart one way or the other!
“The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones.”
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2.
Unfortunately the evil done by Scalia will live on and on while there was lots of vacant space in his coffin for any good that he did, of which I for one am unaware.
Thank you John.
Thank you John, as always, for this piece. You encapsulated the Scalia nightmare completely. May he not rest with any peace.
What is so damnably aggravating is the press’ near-unanimous pour-overs of tears for the loss of: Scalia’s wit (so often cruel and demeaning); his integrity (did he ever disagree with a Republican?); his strict construction of the Constitution (stop voting! Install George W.). This was a political justice, purely and simply. And the national hypocrisy accompanying his death is just one more indication that our media is bought.
I have long felt that due to his position, Antonin Scalia was the worst person in America. I also did not mourn his death for one moment. He made the United States a worse country, and it will be decades at least till the damage he inflicted begins to heal.
It will take a Constitutional Amendment to undue the harm that Scalia has done.
Lets not forget his woeful disregard for All the lives he took for pure pleasure while he was hunting.
His pictures he took with the animals he shot & Killed make me sick.
Also, All the other people that supported and helped him while he was out hunting and killing. Yuk
Double Yuk.
I think he was a Joke.
Hunting is a Sense less past time that has seen its day. An exception is if you hunt for good and not Trophys.
It’s difficult to fathom a more horrible Hobby. It says much about a person who can hunt and spill blood for just the glory of saying, look at me look what I did. Ugh sickening.
I totally agree, Andy. Destroying the lives of innocent animals and then grinning about it is odious.
My gracious! The vitriol we spew about the vitriol of our perceived enemies. Priceless?
I am not a Scalia apologist and I certainly also abhor many of his views whether writing for the majority or the minority. Was he an ideologue? There are doubts? I marvel at how we propose Justices (Judges) should never be ideologues. How the hell do any of us, after a few years of adult life in this country, not become ideologues? That my, and many here, ideologies are at the other end of the continuum from Scalia, does not negate his right to remain true to his.
I cannot say I “mourn” his passing, especially from a political point of view, but I can also not say that I won’t miss some of his humor and his intellect. Agree or not, the man was brilliant. I can dismiss some of the kind words offered about him by liberal justices as simply obligatory professional courtesy. However, I do take more seriously the words of Justice Ginsburg. She had a long professional relationship with him predating on the SCOTUS and she knew him personally and it is not uncommon that our private personas differ greatly from those of our professional ones. How many of us do not come across as more affable when we let our hair down.
Though a powerful voice in is role, Scalia was but ONE Justice, well TWO if you throw in Thomas. It seems a little bit of paranoia to suggest HE alone was responsible for the heinous decisions mentioned here. He had allies. I also find folly in the juxtaposition of GWB’s “selection” and his eventual acts, as somehow the fault of the SCOTUS or especially Scalia. We hope wise men/women will be appointed to the court but we surely know the position does not come with a crystal ball.
The conjecture that the SCOTUS was set to rule against the Climate Change EO, in a 5-4 decision, is not simply conjecture but ridiculous star gazing. Even liberal justices will tell you that the SCOTUS does not prejudge the cases that come before them. Courts, especially the SCOTUS, often stay EOs realizing that until they can get a hearing many actions could be taken that would prove difficult to undo.
Bemoan Scalia’s record, disagree with his views and opinions but let us not ignore his years of public service and the fact that, like all of us, he was but a man, with a family and friends who loved him. I am not religious in the least but I do regret, if not mourn, the passing of anyone and especially those of historical significance whether I shared their views or not.
One final note. Few here loathe hunting and the killing of animals more than me but whence condemning those who participate we’re including many common men and many of our political persuasion. Singling out Scalia as somehow the poster boy is really nitpicking rather than constructive criticism.
There are many “brilliant” people who use their brilliance to screw other people. Yet there are people like you who don’t consider the net results of the brilliance, but admire people just because they are brilliant.
Thanks for your comment, but it amounts to an apologia for Scalia. Who cares if he was affable or not unless you admire people for their affableness regardless of their evil works in this life. Scalia’s private persona is irrelevant; I don’t care if he was the most likable person in the whole world. Many evil men are likable. But evidently you’ve been sucked in by all the encomiums that the media and the right wing has felt it necessary to spew about him.
You are getting quite cranky in your old age John, often “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
For the record, I am not, nor never have been “sucked in” by the media, nor especially right wing nutcases. I am also never “sucked in” by the ranting and wailing of liberal lunatics. I have always been independent-minded, I make my own evaluations and express them.
First of all, let’s dispense with the “evil” bullshit, Leave that to the bible-thumpers. Do I disagree with almost every opinion Scalia ever expressed? Most assuredly! That is the difference in our ideologies. Was Scalia an island, spouting his nonsense and spoon-feeding his decisions to everyone against their will? No! Not only did he have the support of, give or take, 50% of our countrymen but, where he was victorious, the support of at least 4 of his cronies on the court. On the court, he did not achieve his support through blackmail or extortion but by logic and reason. Sure, we disagree with his conclusions but each of us would be hard pressed to argue with him face to face.
What I found most abhorrent was his concept of trying to find the “original intent” of the founders. To me, believing we face issues the founders could not have conceived, it is folly to try and determine what they thought at the time and extrapolate that to how they would solve today’s problems. It does come down to believing the Constitution, as written, is sacrosanct versus it being a living document. Scalia was not the only one holding the former view.
Our hapless public is amazing. We, almost to a person, would propose we want “principled” people in high office. Seldom mentioned is, only if their “principles” are aligned with mine. In this country our coins have many sides on many issues. We have a process whereby people vote to hopefully elect those most closely aligned with their principles. The failing often occurs when the pendulum swings and our principles waiver. We make poor choices in leaders, or we abdicate our voting rights and allow poor choices to occur, which then leads to poorer choices in appointments to positions that impact us. We claim that ours is the superior system but no one suggests it is a perfect system and the biggest imperfection is often our populace. (Place Pogo footnote here)
I do derive my evaluation of any person on the entirety of their lives. That they disagreed with me and effected decisions that negatively affect me and/or my fellow man I view as a fault, but it is an honest fault. In the final analysis, if they stayed true to their principles they were honorable men.
In my retirement, living on a fixed income, I am careful not to wad too many of my panties for fear I can’t afford new ones.
Stan, methinks you protest too much. You’ll defend a justice who follows his ideology and calls himself a strict constitutionalist? If you were on the receiving end of Scalia’s instinctual unkindesses you probably wouldn’t so passionately embrace his hypocrisy. You’re throwing the word, paranoia, at people not nearly as pissed off as yourself. You call concerns over the climate change “ridiculous star gazing” even while WINTER TORNADOS are tearing through the South and cities are shutting down. Go enjoy your life. Be glad you can afford this kind of comforts you have and don’t insult people who are reasonable with your dishonesty. You’re one puppy among many, like the rest of us.
Bob, what makes you think I have not been on the receiving end of many SCOTUS decisions? Perhaps I doth protest too much but is it possible you ass-u-me too much?
Are you suggesting John’s rant here is not paranoia? If you read carefully I posited that John’s ascribing all the heinous SCOTUS decisions to Scalia ALONE, was paranoia.
Reading even more carefully, with open eyes, you would also see my “ridiculous star gazing” remark was not about the subject of climate change but about John’s assumption that the SCOTUS predetermined a 5-4 decision against Obama’s EO.
Objective criticism is never a bad thing but one based on a cursory review of material or based on not reading carefully achieves nothing.
Great article- demonstrates while all of America should be mourning..the horrid, long-lasting, devastating decisions made by Scalia. I met him and he couldn’t even justify lifelong appointments for USSC and Federal Judges..does that sound like an intellect to you?
Scalia or anyone else who is on the side of Republicans who will not let us deal with climate change and will make it more difficult for the world’s nations to hold to solutions can be seen as murderers pure and simple!