'Separation of church & state caused the holocaust?' -- Scalia is an idiot

[techweenie]

A couple weeks ago, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a speech at the oldest synagogue in the US, claiming that the Holocaust was made possible by Nazi Germany's 'separation of church and state' and that 'Jews would be safer in a Christian state.'

Apparently there are no books on the Third Reich in Scalia's library -- if he has one. The Nazis declared that the church and state were merged in 1933 and appointed a Lutheran pastor the "Reich Bishop" of the German Protestant Church. Hitler's "Aryan race" was said to have been given the divine right to rule.

But lack of history aside, Scalia is a candidate to be the next Chief Justice -- the other frontrunner being that equally learned and erudite jurist, Clarence Thomas.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

moron...

apparently, that idiot hasnt read up on Nazism...

Or we could just go talk to my Dutch grandfather who hid jews in his attic...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Tech -
Please provide references to the Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia SC opinions which you find deficient, and explain why. I mean, in your own words.

Just curious, but whom do you believe to be the best, most convincing draftsperson of the current Supremes?

JP

[smoak]

I think his quote was actually:

The justice asked, "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so."

Your interpretation seems a bit overreaching IMO. Be that as it may, I believe that Justice Scalia is trying to say that this country was founded upon a belief in a God, which I think is historically accurate (I am not a religious right-winger by the way, in fact pretty far from it).

Here is something I saw on this speech:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112704X.shtml

"Scalia told them that while the church-and-state battle rages, the official examples of the presence of faith go back to America's Founding Fathers: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax-exemption for houses of worship - and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance."

Anyway, I also think Scalia's point was somewhat overreaching as well. However, rather than chalk it up to a lack of learned knowledge on the subject, I think he chose an example (poor as it might have been) he believes would strike home with his obvious audience in attendance.

It is an interesting subject matter though and I appreciate your take on it, but I disagree with your take on Scalia, he is definately not an idiot. Maybe misguided in is idealogy sometimes, but certainly not unintelligent.

[Moneyguy1]

Many people in history could be considered quite intelligent, but with flaws in their logic which led them down paths with terrible consequences.

One cannot necessarily equate intelligence with sanity.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by smoak


"Scalia told them that while the church-and-state battle rages, the official examples of the presence of faith go back to America's Founding Fathers: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax-exemption for houses of worship - and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance."

Anyway, I also think Scalia's point was somewhat overreaching as well. However, rather than chalk it up to a lack of learned knowledge on the subject, I think he chose an example (poor as it might have been) he believes would strike home with his obvious audience in attendance.

It is an interesting subject matter though and I appreciate your take on it, but I disagree with your take on Scalia, he is definately not an idiot. Maybe misguided in is idealogy sometimes, but certainly not unintelligent.

What you quote from Scalia's talk is somewhat downstream from the initial claim that the Jews sould have been safer in Europe (one supposes in Nazi-occupied countries). At least, that's what I get from the quote:

"Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so."

IOW, church and state were separated in Europe...? Well, maybe, except in the very countries where the Jews were least safe.

No, sorry, this is not an intelligent man speaking. It's someone's personal ideology overruling fact and logic. This is not what one wants in a judge.

There's fodder for endless discussion about what the founding fathers meant to do and say, but siezing on the outside writings of Jefferson or Madison alone does not negate what's written in the constitution and declaration. That this country's founding fathers recognized monotheism in their writing is not the issue. What is at issue is that factions in this country are trying to turn statements encompassing Islam, Judaism and Christianity into an endorsement of a specific fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. And that's flat wrong.

As to who'd be the best chief, there is only one 'moderate' on the bench at the moment, and he's suffering from thyroid cancer. I hope he recovers, because if he retires, there will be a battle over the next appointee that will set the court's course for the next dozen or more years. And GWB thinks Scalia and Thomas are ideal, which is pretty scary, IMHO.

[island911]

One cannot necessarily equate intelligence with sanity.

. . . and one cannot necessarily equate "things religious" with insanity.


I mean really; it seems that some lib's are so knee-jerk reaction opposed to anything "religious" that they can't see straight.

Keep in mind that religion used to be the ONLY societal control.

Now, w/ craddle to grave lib's pushing big government, they hate the idea that religion ever got anything right. So they separate it, as they can, from our popular culture; demonize it . . .kill it.

[bryanthompson]

I don't know of a single Christian who believes in pushing the Jews into the sea.

[concentric]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
I don't know of a single Christian who believes in pushing the Jews into the sea.

How about the Klan, Aryan Nation, etc.? They don't exist now? Love to gloss over the "Jewish media conspiracy" articles on Free Republic, etc?

The christian church has been one of the most destructive and hypocritical organizations in the history of the planet. I'm not bashing the religion here, that's (for me) an entirely separate issue from the institution.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Tech -
Rehnquist was a pretty darned conservative Justice before he was elevated to Chief Justice. The move moderated him. Maybe the same will happen to Scalia if elevated? And it's not like the CJ gets 2 votes or anything.

Having studied Con Law pretty extensively, Scalia is one of the finest jurists the Court has known, and even his detractors (who know what they're talking about) acknowledge that. He has one of the keenest minds and devastating writing styles. Read some of his dissents. He is a constructionist, and doesn't believe in finding/creating new "rights" in a document that doesn't contain and didn't contemplate them -- the Right to Privacy, for instance. What a joke.

But it sounds like you have an issue with constructionists ... many activists do; and Scalia gives them fits b/c he decimates them. So, being unable to respond to his points, they attack him ad hominem and call him "stupid" or "biased" (who isn't... I mean, really) or some other label intended to damage the arguments indirectly that they cannot assail on their merits.

IMHO, the Left has not had such an excellent writer/thinker on the bench in my lifetime, anyway.

JP

[304065]

JP, I think that you and I could probably read over a Scalia opinion and find one or two things we would have done differently. That is, of course, only after the protracted study of Con Law, having read a half dozen of his opinions over the years, and plenty of time thinking about the Constitution.

For Techweenie (who remains on my ignore list BTW) to take a cheap shot at the Justice is perfectly in keeping with his political agenda, but not worth serious consideration. Certainly not without a transcript of the speech and the context.

BTW, Ron was asking for you last night.

[Scooter]

This is just sad. I guy gets on here and spouts off his opinion and interpretation of a speach that is taken out of context, as if it is fact, then when called on it, he continues his own rhetoric.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Kos -
You know I read a lot and I've never been more impressed w/ any author than I have been w/ Scalia. Frankly, it's the topics at issue that bore me many times. I enjoy his incisive mind and his ability to cut right to the heart of an issue and explain it very vividly -- but what he's writing about doesn't always keep my interest.

He's not perfect, certainly, but nobody is. I still stand by my statement that he's the most gifted SC justice of our time. I don't mean this to derogate any one person in particular, but unless you've studied Con Law and read a variety of justices' opinions, you really can't make informed statements about Scalia or the court if they're just based on other hacks' opinions.

Sorry about last night -- I was out all night Tuesday w/ my brother (I mean ALL night -- took the 7:39am back to Sayville, not having slept, and went to work) and our 10-K is due this coming Tues.

I'm off to our firm party (which is a bash!) and then up to the Catskills for some quality quadding for the w/e. Just gotta push "send" on this email to the financial printer and I'm outta here.

JP

[smoak]

I have found the few John Paul Stevens opinions that he has actually authored to be fairly well written with thoughtful argument. His politically moderate views do serve our system well with the current state of the court's makeup. I do tend to agree that having too many of one type of jurist on a policy making judical body can be damaging to the overall system.

Back to the point though, Scalia is no idiot and his viewing the Constitution as a complete document does lend itself to harsh critcism from those who would love to take out their pens and add to the breadth of the rights contained within it.

[304065]

The Constitution is not a ceiling on our rights, it's the floor. Consider, for example, the Ninth Amendment, which provides:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If a State Legislature were to enact a provision that expressly expanded individual rights, that puts the discussion on an entirely different basis. However, the Constitution's MINIMUM guarantees of essential liberties are what are being used to further, for example, decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which relied on the "penumbra rights doctrine" that suggested (and I'll quote William O. Douglas here, just so I'm not accused of paraphrasing the Court):

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.

It is that kind of reasoning against which is weighed the interest of the unborn. And that's what Court hung it's decision in Roe on.

Consider the opposite. Consider how frequently the guarantees of the Second Amendment, which is specifically articulated, are abridged by the States. This is no mere "penumbra" of a right: the Framers considered this one to be SO essential to the Constitution's "framework of ordered liberty" that they put it SECOND in line. Why do you think that is?

Anyway, Bill, I agree with you insofar as the "penumbra rights doctrine" does look strikingly similar to judge-made law, and creates a right to privacy that overrides any other interests. It's not the responsibility of the Judicial Branch to extend the scope of rights retained, it's the Legislative Branch's job. And how ironic it is that the very same Legislature routinely acts to undermine one of the expressly written provisions.

The fact that Scalia articulates this brilliantly just makes him more of a target for people who cannot stand the fact that the Constitution stands in the way of their dream for American Utopia.

[Victor]

Originally posted by concentric
How about the Klan, Aryan Nation, etc.? They don't exist now? Love to gloss over the "Jewish media conspiracy" articles on Free Republic, etc?

The christian church has been one of the most destructive and hypocritical organizations in the history of the planet. I'm not bashing the religion here, that's (for me) an entirely separate issue from the institution.

You better add the Pope and the entire Catholic system for helping the SS out of europe after WW2.

[smoak]

Well put John. I have had similar exchanges with some of my more outspoken Federalist friends, but less I digress.

[MichiganMat]

you mean Scalia actually let people __record__ what he said at a public event? Unbelievable!

You're making this up Tech...