Image via Wikipedia
“The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.” — Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice.
In America, the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge. Once it has decided a matter, that’s pretty much it. Antonin Scalia, one of the judges who sits on that court, has said — in as many words — that he only respects the rule of law insofar as it does not conflict with his religious beliefs. For that, nothing short of impeachment is suitable.
The last Supreme Court judge to be impeached was “Old Bacon Face,” Samual Chase. In 1805, he was brought up on charges that he treated defendants unfairly based on his political bias. He was eventually acquitted. Of particular note is that Chase’s impeachment set the benchmark for several judicial boundaries. Most notably, it set the “gold standard” that Supreme Court justices are required to abstain from partisan politics. And let’s be perfectly clear: Religious intrusion into the law of the land is a partisan political matter. Just ask Rick Perry.
Chase’s alleged crimes were less egregious than Scalia’s. While Chase was accused of “bending the law” unfairly based on his own personal beliefs, Judge Scalia has said in as many words that he does not hold himself to the law when it conflicts with his personal beliefs. Like so many other Christians in politics, his gold standard is his religious convictions, and he will only follow the law if it conforms to them.
At this point, we might as well throw the Constitution in the trash. If a judge can preside over the highest court in the land and impose his own personal beliefs on cases, then the Constitution has no meaning. It is simply a suggestion to be ignored.
There are irrefutable facts that cannot be ignored:
- The U.S. government was established with a document that has not one single mention of God.
- The U.S. government was established with the clear intent of NOT becoming like the religious monarchy the colonists had fled.
- The Bible, and by extension Christian governmental ideals, are antithetical to the U.S. form of government.
This isn’t the first time Scalia has proven his unworthiness. In 2003, he had to recuse himself from a case involving “Under God.” You see, he claimed in a speech that the Framers of the Constitution didn’t intend to “exclude God from the public forums and from political life.” Clearly, unequivocally, undeniably, Scalia is biased beyond mere partisan leaning. He is a danger to the ideals of the framers, and an insult to the blood, sweat, and tears that went into creating America – a place where religious freedom was guaranteed by the dogged refusal of government to endorse or favor any religion. He is a votary of metaphysical woo, not a champion for fairness, equality, and justice.
Antonin Scalia has spit on the Constitution. He has told us very clearly that he is not qualified to preside over a court whose sacrosanct duty is to uphold the law. He is a Christian first and an American second. He is a traitor to his position, and a traitor to the American people.
Life Without a Net 
OK, now I understand why all the posters and supporters of this blog left…
Posted by PG | October 1, 2011, 8:50 pmWe haven’t left, we’re just busy trying to deal with the shitstorm of insanity that is our current political system. Some of us are trying to figure out ways to leave the country should another religious bigot win the presidency, as we’re not sure we would survive bush 2.0, especially with judges like this on the court. Some of us are trying prevent that. And some of us are just busy with work, families, and life.
PS, you’re not nearly as entertaining as you used to be, so the attentionwe’re willing to invest on you is drastically diminished.
Posted by Alex Hardman | October 2, 2011, 10:24 amhttp://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/william-hamby
That’s where they are.
Posted by Ian | October 2, 2011, 7:14 pmIt’s situations like this, that I seriously consider re-evaluating my position of the relationship between law and society.
Take this and abortion. Abortion is legal whether I think it’s moral or not, and a common “pro-choice” argument I hear is that it’s legal by SCOTUS so deal with it.
That’s where this comes in. If Captain Justice here, declares creationism is legal, or even mandatory in schools, and that “under God” is legal and consitutional, what then? Should I and society just accept it because it’s legal? Why should I do it for one thing but not the other?
I don’t know.
Posted by Alison | October 5, 2011, 9:15 pmThat’s a good question to ask, Alison. I can’t answer for you, obviously, but I’ll explain it from my point of view. I do believe in several of the principles behind the U.S. Constitution. Most notably, I believe in the separation of government and religion. If Captain Justice declares creationism to be true, or declares that it ought to be taught in schools as a scientific theory, this is a clear violation of that principle. It is also factually wrong, since creationism is not a scientific theory. So I object to it on two counts: First, that it violates church/state separation, and second that it defies reality. I believe law ought to reflect reality. That’s another of my big soap-boxes.
Ultimately, anyone and everyone must decide what their foundational principles are, and support the government that relies on them. Luckily, this coincides with another of my foundational beliefs: People should be allowed to make their own decisions and have fair access to their own level of influence. It is also why I am opposed to the current inequality in the U.S. But that’s another story.
For me, I oppose governmental measures that (1) favor any religion over secular neutrality, (2) adhere to non-scientific belief systems about economics, human nature, etc, (3) create an environment which disenfranchises or otherwise subjugates one class of citizens, (4) restricts free access to knowledge in any way. I figure if you get those four things right, you’ll have a lot less nonsense to worry about, and get a lot farther in promoting human happiness and functional society.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | October 6, 2011, 10:19 amHe should be struck off! Judges are supposed to be impartial!
Posted by Anna Johnstone | March 13, 2012, 10:40 pmIs there more to it than what you share, here? I don’t like Scalia, but I don’t think I can disagree with what you’ve got quoted above from him. Well, I don’t believe in any hereafter, but it can be a useful metaphor.
Posted by bubbarich | March 14, 2012, 4:24 pmI find it astonishing that articles like this are written about men like Scalia when similarly critical articles about the racist Sotomayor are so hard to find. Further, I suggest you all go back and read Thomas Jefferson “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there is one god, or twenty gods, or no gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Your sole concern where Scalia is concerned is whether his religion has colored his decisions, not whether he is religious or not. Find a case where he failed to properly apply the law due to his religion, and I will grant you this criticism.
Posted by JP | March 14, 2012, 7:29 pmJP: As I said, this seems to be a silly, ill-considered complaint about Scalia.
But calling Justice Sotomayor “racist” is far worse. If you read this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-ferber/sotomayor-racist_b_208639.html carefully, you might learn how saying that marks you as a person ill-equipped to judge.
Posted by bubbarich | March 20, 2012, 2:58 pmJustice Scalia…. You’re a dumb mother-fucker!
Posted by SmilingAtheist | January 27, 2014, 4:40 pm