Saclia: diningenuous or politically clueless?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is either being disingenuous or he is the most politically clueless man in Washington.

He was asked by an audience member at a speech whether the Supreme Court has become more political.   He answered that it is not political at all.   Acknowledging that the court has five members appointed by Republican presidents and four appointed by Democratic presidents.

"But that doesn't mean they make decisions based on politics.   They are nominated by a political president, but they are selected for their judicial philosophy -- and then they vote according to that judicial philosophy.   Politics has nothing to do with it."   [That may be slightly paraphrased;  I'm quoting from memory.]

And then he gilded the lily by expanding the question about politics to his seemingly favorite topic of whether decisions are influenced by subjectivity.   He wouldn't use that term, because he denies there is any, but he exudes his subjectivity all over the place every time he speaks.  How can it not influence his decisions?

As he has before, he trotted out his defense of his opposition to eliminating sodomy laws (he's equally opposed to marriage equality).   "If we can't have moral feelings about sodomy, how can we have moral feelings about murder?"

This was being discussed by three bright, young commentators on HuffingtonPost video.  All seemed to support marriage equality, but one took the side of Scalia, explaining that he was talking about a behavior (sodomy), not an identity.   So, you may not agree that it is bad and should be illegal, but it does seem to be equating two things that are both behaviors that people have moral feelings about.

NO !!   NO !!   They missed the point.   Murder is not considered a heinous crime because people have strong moral feelings about it (although most do).  It is a crime because it deprives someone else of his most basic right to life.    Homosexual behavior, gay identity, and marriage equality, all between consenting adults, have absolutely nothing to do with depriving someone else of any rights.

So Scalia's reasoning is completely false on that count.   As to saying politics has nothing to do with the court's decisions, he has also demonstrated that he thinks emotions and relationships have nothing to do with decisions either:   he is completely clueless to his own demonstrable subjectivity. 

Otherwise, he would have recused himself from the case that involved Vice President Cheney's meetings with energy executives shortly after (Scalia) rode with the Vice President on Air Force 2 to go hunting.   And that's only one small example.   We could also sight all the opinions he writes that drip with sarcasm for the opposing arguments and, often, his opposing colleagues on the court.  

Pure legal reasoning?    I think not.

Ralph