Three professions that I think change the world more often than others are engineering, politics and law. Engineering produces technological breakthroughs that fundamentally change the way we live, boosting productivity and making life more fun and convenient. Political thoughts and their practices advance societal framework and institutions where men and women are motivated to pursue their dreams. Law, and rule of law, passively but successfully prevents society from going to chaos, maintains justice and protects individual rights and private properties.
In common law systems where precedents are followed and respected, landmark decisions made by judges and justices have usually become remarkable history that influences several generations. Brown v. Board of Education declared the end of the segregation era nationwide. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, but has not stopped debates between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and resistance from states that have nullified the court’s ruling.
Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and legal scholar, passed away due to natural causes in Texas a couple weeks ago. More than 30 years serving in the bench, he left a noticeable legacy as “constitutional originalism” where he thought that the Constitution of the United States should be interpreted in a way that the founders intended. Because of his legacy, the media depicted him as a conservative justice, suggesting that most of his decisions sided with conservatism.
Justice Scalia’s passing has become a news headline in all major media outlets. But hundreds of articles concerning Scalia’s death are rarely reminiscent of his influence and hardly take the tone of mourning. Instead, pundits and commentators have been actively debating what kind of changes the timing of his death will bring to America’s political landscape. They also discuss whether President Barack Obama will immediately appoint a liberal judge to replace the vacant seat and how Republicans might block his nomination.
It might be easier for the public to understand the affairs of the Supreme Court if the media used the terms conservative or liberal to label justices simply by identifying the president who appointed them. If that president happened to be a Democrat, the judges he appointed to the Supreme Court must be liberals. The same happens to the Republicans. But this highly politicalized method oversimplifies the way the Supreme Court works as an institution for guarding the fundamental law of the land. And it pays no respect to law professions.
Most justices began their career as lawyers, clerks, prosecutors, etc. Law schools don’t teach them to interpret the laws employing their ideology, but rather by using logical thinking, following the wisdom of precedents. Justices and judges don’t, and should not, enforce their personal views when making decisions. If they want to advance their personal ideology, it is better for them to run elected offices, not the professional, unelected, judiciary positions. When Justice Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer were asked if they had made decisions that strongly contradicted their personal views in a discussion organized in 2011, both justices nevertheless admitted that they had. Justice Scalia pointed out that he had made many decisions that he personally disliked, but that’s what qualifies a judge. Justice Breyer stated that every time a decision is made, there are losers and winners. Winners usually praise the lawyer, while losers usually blame the judge.
Ironically, regardless of how the public and media outlets describe justices and fantasize about the way they make decisions, justices still keep a fair distance from public opinion and continue to work on cases with professionalism.
No matter how much some dislike Justice Scalia personally and disagree with his decisions, they should still pay respect to a public servant that had served this nation for 30 years and contributed tremendous thoughts to the legal study. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote: “One test of un homme sérieux is that it is possible to learn from him even when one radically disagree with him.” Those with whom we disagree will often have things to teach us. Let us learn from Justice Scalia’s witty writing, sarcasm and wisdom in his dissents.
