Wednesday, March 13, 2013

"Mental Decrepitude" or Political Polarization

By Mike Dorf

My new Verdict column discusses Justice Scalia's already-(in)famous description of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as a form of "racial entitlement" during the oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder.  I defend him--after a fashion--from the charges of racism and racial insensitivity, explaining that he has been making the same claim about race-based affirmative action for years.  Thus, I say that, in context, Justice Scalia was simply arguing that the VRA leads to the creation (and perpetuation) of identifiably black voting districts.  On the merits, I think this is an insufficient basis for invalidating the VRA--not least because Sec. 5 of the VRA is mostly not about congressional districts.  So I think Justice Scalia's point is something of a non sequitur and I accordingly judge it not-racist-but-still-problematic.

What if I'm wrong?  One view--favored by commentators like Jeffrey Toobin and Rachel Maddow--is that Justice Scalia is somehow "losing it."  As one would expect, given their respective places in the political spectrum, Toobin (who appeals to a general, albeit liberal-leaning, audience) finds this possibility sad, whereas Maddow (who appeals to a partisan liberal audience) simply treats it as an occasion for condemnation.  But the general tenor of their remarks is the same.  In this view, Justice Scalia has lately become openly partisan, reveling in sticking it to his political opponents.  In addition to the complaint about "racial entitlement," in this view Justice Scalia's dissent in last Term's Arizona v. United States is another example of his going partisan.  At the time, Toobin characterized the dissent's seemingly gratuitous shots at the Obama Administration as Justice Scalia outdoing his own well-earned "reputation for engaging in splenetic hyperbole."

I'm not so sure that anything has changed.  There's a tendency to think that the most recent episodes (of just about every phenomenon) are the most severe, even when there is no long-term trend.  It's not clear to me that Justice Scalia's more recent statements are in fact more severe than earlier ones--especially in light of my interpretation of the Shelby County statements as at least intended in good faith.  Remember, we are talking about a Justice who wrote in 1996 that there's no special reason to worry about discrimination against gay people because, among other things, they "enjoy[] enormous influence in American media and politics."  (I told you I was only going to defend Justice Scalia "after a fashion.")

In any event, I think we would need a whole lot more evidence to conclude that Justice Scalia has somehow "snapped" in some way.  Certainly nothing about Justice Scalia's public performance of his duties comes close to the evidence that Professor Garrow marshaled of "mental decrepitude" among other Justices throughout history.

To my mind, the real change has been occurring slowly and systemically.  I believe that Justice Scalia still has all of his marbles but that nowadays there is greater distance between the respective liberal and conservative weltanschauungs than in the past.

Here's an example.  Back in 2010, at the height of the Tea Party's power, I read that Virginia Thomas, who is married to Justice Thomas, was a fan of Rush Limbaugh and intrigued by Glenn Beck, to whom she was "listening carefully."   My first thought was to discount this bit of information because spouses often have different views from one another and while of course Justice Thomas is extremely conservative, that doesn't mean that he takes any guidance from such preposterous characters.  But then I remembered that Justice Thomas officiated at one of Limbaugh's weddings in 1994 and was a guest at Limbaugh's most recent wedding in 2010.  (Insert one/man/one/woman joke here.)

Liberals like me think of Limbaugh and Beck as buffoonish demagogues, but in the modern conservative movement--including its judicial arm--they are mainstream thinkers who perhaps express their views more colorfully than others but in so doing nonetheless fall within the conservative mainstream.  Hence, it really shouldn't be surprising that Justice Scalia occasionally sounds a bit like Rush Limbaugh.  The real mystery may be why he doesn't sound like Limbaugh more often.

8 comments:

AF said...

I don't think you've addressed the heart of the problem with Scalia's comments. It's not just that he referred to the VRA as a "racial entitlement." Scalia's truly indefensible comment was that the near-unanimous vote in favor of extending the VRA did not deserve to be taken at face value, because senators somehow felt compelled to vote for it against their better judgment. Even in the context of affirmative action, that particular claim is highly objectionable, as it implies that political support -- even unanimous political support -- for what you call "conventional civil rights" is somehow illegitimate. (It is also empirically wrong, as evidenced by the political success of anti-affirmative action initiatives across the country.) In the context of the VRA, it is a truly bizarre claim, and hard to explain without evoking some sort animus toward the "conventional" civil rights agenda.

Ultimately, you acknowledge that Scalia seems hostile toward "conventional" civil rights claims, while he enthusiastically embraces civil rights claims by whites. Scalia and his defenders would, of course, disagree with that characterization; they would contend that he rigously believes in de jure color-blindness, and that the only reason is he tends to rule in favor of reverse discrimination claims is that whites are still frequently the victims of de jure discrimination while minorities are not. But if you are willing to go on record that Scalia is in fact biased in favor of reverse discrimination claims and against "conventional" discrimination claims, I'm at something of a loss why you would defend that position from allegations of racism -- even "after a fashion.".

egarber said...

I haven't read all the detail, but what baffled me was the notion that such an observation matters at all as a matter of constitutional law. Isn't the only question whether Congress passed a reasonable law under its 14th and 15th Amendment power? Scalia was acting more like a Congressman, imo. Even if he's right (I disagree with him), that's more properly part of the legislative debate, it seems to me. Odd that he would seemingly just make up constitutional requirements (assuming the comment figures into his opinion).

This also reminds me of Obama's "empathy" remarks way back. Picking justices so detached from the real world -- I put Scalia and other "colorblindness" advocates in that mold -- is what Obama meant to avoid.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Eric: I think Justice Scalia would tie it to the case by saying that the question of whether the law falls within the scope of Congressional power to enforce the 14th and/or 15th Amendment depends in part on how close a fit there is between the means the law usesand the underlying problem. If racial entitlements are simply perpetuated because it's politically challenging to eliminate them once they're in the law, rather than because they're needed, then that undermines the rationale for the law. I disagree with his underlying assessment and he clearly omitted stating a step or two in his reasoning, but there is at least a connection there.

Peny Chou said...

If some one wishes expert view regarding running a blog then i suggest him/her to pay a quick visit this website, runescape accounts sale Keep up the pleasant job.

Cristiero Rola said...

they would contend that he rigously believes in de jure color-blindness, and that the only reason is he tends to rule in favor of reverse discrimination claims is that whites are still frequently the victims of de jure discrimination while minorities are not. But if you are willing to go on record that Scalia is in fact biased in favor of reverse discrimination claims and against "conventional" discrimination claims, I'm at something of a loss why you would defend that position from allegations of racism -- even "after a fashion.http://www.joyrs.com windows 7 ultimate activation key http://www.rs2fun.com

Paul.K said...

and that the only reason is he tends to rule in favor of reverse discrimination claims is that whites are still frequently the victims of de jure discrimination while minorities are not. But if you are willing to go on record that Scalia is in fact biased in favor of reverse discrimination claims and against "conCheap RS Gold | billig WOW Gold
ventional" discrimination claims, I'm at something of a loss why you would defend that position from allegations of racism -- even "after a fashion.".

qiong zhang said...

woah! people shades! people shades! including a lovely figure created by the dress... i love it!Another high quality cosplay costumes great post. I love that you are really sincere along with direct to the stage.

Cicy said...

Isn't the only question whether Congress passed a reasonable law under its 14th and 15th Amendment power? Scalia was acting more like a Congressman, imo. Even if he's right ultimate team coins
elo boost
fut 14 coins
(I disagree with him), that's more properly part of the legislative debate, it seems to me. Odd that he would seemingly just make up constitutional requirements (assuming the comment figures into his opinion).