While I applaud Justice Scalia for giving at least lip service to a strong divide between church and state, I find his argument that the government can clearly favor religion in general over non-religion to be quite disturbing.
(How the government can favor religion in general and not have it slip into religion in specific creeds is utterly bewildering to me. But his opinion that this is clear and obvious because of all those traditional references to "In God We Trust" and so forth belies the argument that such "ceremonial deism" doesn't actually represent religion. Justice Scalia clearly thinks it does, and he just as clearly favors it.)
Just as disturbing is his idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is clear and obvious, that it is to be framed solely on late 18th Century political philosophy, and that he never worries or agonizes at all about decisions. I tend to mistrust people who say the answers to stuff are simple and easy, and that level of hubris mixes poorly with wisdom, it seems to me.
Justice Antonin Scalia: Constitution allows religion to be favored over secularism
"You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
Um… Amendments, anyone?
The sooner this asshat retries the sooner I'll feel better about the SCOTUS.
The Pledge of Allegiance? Really, Mr. Scalia? You’re even older than I, so you certainly remember when that phrase was not included in the PoA. You had to relearn the Pledge just as I did.
Ah well, pointless to argue with him. He’ll make decisions to agree with the RWNJs and the USCCB, as long as he’s on the bench.
But… but… without Scalia to tell him, what will Clarence Thomas think?