Justice Scalia started out the judicial term with a bang. Not much of one, for him, and yet still a pretty decent gaffe if it were to come from a normal person. Something about Mexicans not being expected to abstain from their tequila. They are Mexicans after all.
From Slate.com:
"Nobody laughs. But then, nobody winces or flinches, either. Somehow, a remark that would have flattened us had a Souter spoken it is just a solid day at the office for Scalia. I have no idea where the tequila comment should register on the nation's macaca-meter. The more interesting question is about Scalia's deliberate carelessness with language, his sense that he is somehow above the sorts of linguistic delicacy the rest of us expect in our dealings with others. Indeed, he seems to think it's his obligation to be ever more reckless with his words, perhaps because he's about the only guy left who faces no consequences for his rhetorical body-slams."
Interestingly, that is exactly what I had questioned him about some weeks ago: not his judicial theory, but his callous use of the English language.
"If George Allen had uttered Scalia's 'nobody thinks your client is abstaining from tequila' crack today, it would have been front-page news. The rest of us would have been forced to form some opinion as to whether it was an 'aspersion,' a stereotype, a gaffe, or just a celebration of worm-laden beverages. But the court exists on a different plane, and for good reason. We don't want every branch of government to be beholden to the electorate, but that doesn't mean that the justices shouldn't be beholden to themselves. Scalia wants to be a part of the national conversation, but not on the terms the nation has agreed to. And each time he unleashes one of these remarks, I find myself wondering whether he's protecting his right to express himself, or just relishing his free pass."
At least I know that, at my school, he didnt get a free pass.
I wouldn't let him have one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment