- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'll be harping on him for some time.
His dissent in this cases is truly deranged, deeply offensive to the Constitution and the rule of law, the ravings of a thwarted (for now) Monarcho-Fascist who should never have been confirmed to the court in the first place, and who, once confirmed, should have been removed a long time ago. But no. This is the United States of America, and we are just too darned polite for that. Besides, he's a "brilliant jurist, no matter how much you may disagree with his rulings..." This from so-called "progressives."
So it's not just the American Right that's the problem here; it is also elements of the acquiescent American Left and that vast Middle of Independence. Scalia wouldn't be able to get away with his crap if it weren't for those acquiescent moderates, contrarian indies, and so-called progressives.
The contrast between the rhetoric of the American Right and the British Right is pretty stunning, but we should not forget that British Conservative MPs are in opposition to a Labour government that has been expanding surveillance and detention powers exponentially. It is the job of Conservative MPs to oppose -- and they take their jobs seriously enough to actually and frequently do it. Whoa. Surprise, that.
That they oppose by reference to hoary tradition and ancient law and all that is... well... conservative, something our own Right Wing abandoned long ago. What the British Conservatives would do in power is something else again. I have little doubt they would somehow find a "conservative" reason to go much farther in pursuit of authoritarian control than the Labour government has already done, and they'd mock Labour's pitiful efforts at authoritarianism to boot. Just the way they are.
In this country, the so-called "opposition" is too polite to actually oppose the march of Autocracy. No, instead it has ceaselessly acted to enable and/or authorize such a march. There have been some pro-forma skirmishes over marginal details now and then. Most of such struggle as there has been, however, has been over the Executive's consistent "insults" toward traditional Congressional prerogatives. Law? Constitution? Fringe notions at best. Both parties have actively collaborated in the installation and consolidation of an Autocratic exectutive. And I have no reason to doubt they will continue their productive collaboration in the face of the threat to their cooperation and prerogatives, the insult, ideed, the Court has rendered here.
You watch. Scalia's dissent will become (has already become) the motor for further congressional/Autocracy collaboration in the interest of Saving Us All from the Terrorists. Habeus? Quaint. "An Old Law desperately in need of Updating."
Little Lindsay's tantrum ("I'll get a Constitutional Amendment!!!!") and Scalia's ravings over the ruling are only the beginning. They'll continue to fuss and fume until they get their way. And in the interests of Saving Us All, Our Dems will once again find compromise and comity is far more important than that tattered old piece of parchment they swore to protect and defend.
