Justice Scalia Truly Doesn't Give A Fuck, Does He?

Photo from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Today, the Supreme Court gave a split ruling on President Obama's challenge against Arizona's controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070.  The court struck down multiple provisions, but did leave the statute that said law enforcement officials could demand to see paperwork if they suspected an individual of being an illegal immigrant.  This, of course, has lead to concerns there would be mass amounts of racial profiling.

The good news for civil libertarians like myself, is that the Court did strike down provisions that said illegal immigrants weren't allowed to seek employment, as well as a provision that allows police to make a "warrantless arrest of anyone they had probably cause to believe they made a deportable offense."

I hoped this ruling would have gone further, and activists need to push for Arizona to change the law completely.  However, in addition to sharing the news about the ruling, I also want to share a quote from the ever-modest, Justice Antonin Scalia.  Here is some of what he had to say while defending he Arizona law in his own ruling:

Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted crimi­nals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. Neuman, The Lost Century of American Immigration (1776–1875), 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1833, 1835, 1841–1880 (1993). State laws not only pro­ vided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.

I know Justice Scalia tends to take a more traditional view of the law, but he seems to be crossing a moral line here, especially because he is apparently citing some of these laws as precedent.

UPDATE:

The day after I wrote this post (everything above), E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post wrote an editorial saying that Scalia should resign from the Supreme Court.  On the face of it, I suppose one could say that this is just some left-wing pundit spewing out liberal rhetoric and talking points.  Well, that isn't totally inaccurate, but Dionne makes some excellent points.  As he points out, Scalia wants to be a politician or pundit as much as anyone:

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”
Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.
“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

This is why we need to amend the Constitution and implement term limits on Supreme Court Justices.  I'm just saying . . .