Scalia’s Sore Winners

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

I spent a good part of the weekend marveling at the lefty reaction to Antonin Scalia‘s unexpected death. Did your Facebook feed shamelessly explode with unrestrained celebration too? There are few things more grotesque than watching a bunch of sore winners gloating over the death of a political rival. Proggies were alternatively dancing on his grave, letting out whoops of joy, or soberly explaining how they don’t normally welcome the death of anyone, but hey, sometimes exceptions must be made. An example of one of the more restrained comments:

As a general principle, I agree that one should not speak ill of the dead. But considering that Antonin Scalia tangibly worsened the lives of millions upon millions of people, supported points of view that scapegoat and demonize, and used his power as a Supreme Court justice to validate the idea that businesses should be able to do pretty much anything they want, and generally acted like a condescending, hateful asshole throughout his stint on the court, I don’t really see how anyone owes him any consideration.


  • “tangibly worsened the lives of millions upon millions of people” = “wrote dissents in Lawrence v. Texas and the gay marriage cases”
  • “used his power as a Supreme Court justice to validate the idea that businesses should be able to do pretty much anything they want” = “supported Christian pastry chefs who didn’t want to bake cakes for gay couples”
  • “generally acted like a condescending, hateful asshole” = “disagreed with me and was scathingly unrepentant about it”

My initial response was to wonder what their reaction would be if righties greeted Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death with “ding dong, the witch is dead” sing-a-longs. Strike that — I know exactly what would happen. The NYT, HuffPo, Vox, Vice, DailyKos, and the other organs of progressive thought would go into overdrive for the next month delivering one handwringing thinkpiece after another about conservative misogyny and antisemitism.

None of this is to say I was a big Scalia fan. Like many Cathedral minions, he was a haughty elitist who was way too worshipful of the Ivy League axis for my taste. I disagreed with his views on the 8th Amendment and his opinion in Gonzales v. Raich was particularly odious. But he was a champion of the 4th Amendment, 1st Amendment, and due process — all liberal values. His robust defense of the 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause tangibly helps criminal defendants more than Beyoncé’s latest stab at Black Lives Matter faux-radicalism. None of that crap matters, though, because he had the temerity to believe that the Constitution is silent on abortion even though that’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation given that, um, the Constitution is silent on privacy and abortion. Not to mention, as with gay marriage, his was the minority opinion on the issue. Last I checked, gay marriage and abortion were legal in all 50 states.

The left has done a brilliant job over the decades of turning its constituents into one-issue voters. For feminists, abortion is the be-all-end-all of women’s rights. Likewise, being in favor of gay marriage is now part of that package even though, oh, thirty years ago no one — not even the gay establishment — gave one shit about gays being able to marry. In favor of abortion and gay marriage? Great, everything else is forgiven. Against them? Sorry, you could spend all of your spare time feeding orphans and clothing the homeless, you’re a fucking shitlord who needs to die. This is how the Party of Compassion™ operates.

About Blowhard, Esq.

Amateur, dilettante, wannabe.
This entry was posted in Law, Politics and Economics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Scalia’s Sore Winners

  1. Will S. says:

    Welcome, my moderate, traditional liberal friends, to the Dark Side, in terms of being Beyond the Pale of Acceptable Political Discourse, outside the Overton Window.

    Ironically, it is we assorted various flavours of misfits who are more more open-minded than them, over there in Groupthinkia.


  2. plwinkler says:

    “The left has done a brilliant job over the decades of turning its constituents into one-issue voters.”
    So too has the right, being equally the mirror image of the left on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. plwinkler says:

    I contend that most people who actually vote are fairly satisfied with choosing to ally themselves with one of the two major parties. Third and forth and fifth parties have always been around and none of them ever make much headway for a variety of reasons: extreme platforms, lack of exposure, unappealing candidates. In a sense, both Trump and Sanders now constitute one-man third parties who capitalize on populist dissaffection from the entrenched plutocratic political process in much the same way Ross Perot did the first time that he ran.


  4. agnostic says:

    We may not have successful third parties, but we do have successful realignments of the existing parties — switches that last for decades, until another realignment.

    This election is akin to the 1896 election, a major realignment when the populists McKinley and Bryan took over from the laissez-faire Establishment. Old Guard Republicans lost out to the Progressives, and the Bourbon Democrats lost out to the Populists.

    If you think this is the first time a Republican front-runner was against deregulated trade, guess again. McKinley put himself on the map in Congress with an 1890 tariff bearing his name.

    Spoilers: William Jennings Bryan ran and lost three times — twice to McKinley and later to Taft. Even though he kept losing elections, he still did a great service by burying the Bourbon Democrats (laissez-faire economics, open borders, party of the immigrants), and giving birth to the Populist types who would morph into the New Deal Democrats somewhat later.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jeffrey S. says:


    Your link to that little Atlantic article reminds me once again what a brilliant mind Scalia had. I find myself in total agreement with his argument regarding the 8th Amendment (they key word is “punishment”) — as always, he sticks to the text of the Constitution and asks “what does it say”, not “what do I want it to say.”

    Going back over some of his great decisions (dissents mostly) one is reminded of what a fabulous writer he was. Here are a few that you’ve probably already seen, but perhaps your readers might like an easy link:

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Stupid is Evil is Stupid Edition | Patriactionary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s