EJ.Dionne Jr. says Scalia should resign

Washington Post columnist EJ. Dionne Jr. has written a column outlining reasons why he believes Justice Scalia has confused judicial opinion with political criticism:

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

Comments

[Finis Hominis]

EJ.Dionne Jr. says Scalia should resign. What, and leave us without the most important reason to nominate a rock solid liberal?

[KS]

Ginsburg should resign, as she is in bad health.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

Interesting quote from Justice Scalia on Gitmo. Evidently Pres Obama agrees with Gitmo as he has made the deliberate decision to keep it 'open for business' over the past 3.5 years.

What is amazing to me is how the Left doesn't care when President Obama is running Gitmo. But let it be a Republican, then all you hear is how Gitmo manufactures more terrorists, it is a legal stain upon America, etc etc etc. So maybe it was less about the legality of Gitmo and more about the political points one can score. Now THAT is sad.

Just instructive to watch the hypocrisy in action.

[Puget Sound Blatehrs]

Obamacare Upheld with Justice Roberts the swing vote.

Individual Mandate is a tax and not unconstitutional.

WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW

[KS]

Slight correction - The SCOTUS decision said that the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional in terms of the Commerce clause and constitutional in terms of being a tax.

Some would say that this is Bush's fault for nominating John Roberts on the SCOTUS. I'd say now that there is some merit to that statement. Looks like Romney's campaign just became easier.

[sparky]

You could have a great future working at Fox News, KS.

[Preston]

yeah, somehow in the Bizzarro world, what is up is down

[KS]

You could have a great future working at Fox News, KS.

Posted by: sparky | June 28, 2012 at 08:49 AM

Or working for the Koch Brothers. Party down Sparky with your Leviathan win !

[sparky]

Not partying here...still too much to be done. I was just admiring your ability to turn this into a positive for Romney. How will he handle tossing mud at a program that was essentially modeled on his own from when he was Governor?

[KS]

Romney can still defend the MA Health Care plan at the state level and side with the SCOTUS. He could not denounce it during the campaign, but he can cite the differences (60 pages vs. 2700+ pages for one) between MA health care and the Obamacare Leviathan and at the same time denounce the SCOTUS decision.

The individual mandate was claimed not to be a tax, yet the Supremes decided that it was. That is a cowardly act for them, but they have done it before and will do it again. You were disappointed at the Citizens United ruling and I'm disappointed with this.

I am busy here, but life goes on...

[sparky]

Well, cheer up. This is a great day for insurance companies.

I have no illusions about Roberts. This was done to repair their standing with the public.
And just like clockwork, the Koch Brothers announced this morning they are pouring 8 million dollars into ads against health care in a dozen states. Even after the rest of the provisions kick in in 2014, there will always be people out there who will try to overturn it, just like Roe V Wade, 40 years later.

[T-S]

Well, this all puts Rob McKenna on the wrong side. :)

[KS]

I still think McKenna will win though.