'Tard of the Week - Justice Antonin Scalia

Thursday, October 8, 2009
There's a case before the SCOTUS this week. It's called Salazar v. Buono, and it's an establishment clause case, centered around a WWI memorial cross in the Mojave desert that is maintained by the local VFW members. The cross is evidently installed inside a national park, and an employee of the National Park Service, Frank Buono, sued on the grounds that the cross' presence was a violation of the establishment clause.

It's not that simple, of course - in 2004, the Congress got involved, and there were a bunch of shenanigans related to who "owns" the land, and whether or not other memorials would be affected if the SCOTUS forces the VFW to remove this one, etc., etc., ad naseum. I'm not entirely clear on all the legal nuances, and since a decision has not yet been made, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude.

However, during oral arguments, Eric's favorite justice, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the following exchange with ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg:

MR. ELIASBERG: … I think it would be very odd indeed for the VFW to feel that it was free to take down the cross and put up, for example, a statues of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I, not just Christians, and say: Well, we were free to do that because even though there’s the sign that says, this cross is designated to honor all the —

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that — is that —

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that’s actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn’t say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that’s why the Jewish war veterans —

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It’s the — the cross is the — is the most common symbol of — of — of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn’t seem to me — what would you have them erect? A cross — some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my — the point of my — point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don’t feel honored by this cross. This cross can’t honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.

Um, yeah. A sitting Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States believes that "the cross is the — is the most common symbol of — of — of the resting place of the dead..." and that "I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion."

An outrageous conclusion? Really, Justice Scalia? Christ on a crutch (or more to the point - on a cross), could you have more unearned privilege and sense of entitlement, you pompous twit? Only a member of the majority, who is absolutely certain that his unearned privilege is his birthright and something that should NEVER, EVER BE CHALLENGED would make such a claim. How can this guy possibly believe that his religious symbol is the "symbol of the dead" that represents "all the war dead?" I doubt very seriously he'd feel that way if the symbol in question was the Star of David or a Wiccan Pentacle, both symbols authorized by the VA as religious symbols on veteran's tombstones.

Quite frankly, this fucking boggles my mind. BOGGLES. How does he not see how exclusionary such a symbol is to non-Christians? I actually still have some respect for the SCOTUS as an institution, but Justice Scalia - this time, you're a 'tard.

11 comments:

The Mechanicky Gal said...

I read it as "this time you're a TURD."

And thought that was MUCH better.

Megan said...

I look forward to the "Muslim half moon and star" that will be erected on Scalia's grave to honour him.

I especially like the notion that MORE religious symbols should be put up to fix the problem.

Eric said...

It's a little amazing that it's simultaneously boggling and predictable that Justice Scalia would say something like that. I don't think it's exactly a cultural secret that Jewish cemetaries don't have crosses or that marking a Jewish (or Muslim) grave in an interdenominational cemetary would be considered a sacrilege and insult.

But Scalia, as always, assumes what he assumes. He thinks "graveyard," he thinks "rows and rows of crosses."

What should be erected? Perhaps a cue might be taken from memorials such as the London Cenotaph (erected after WWI, originally to honor the dead of that war) or the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. Simple, abstract memorials in which the lack of religious or ethnic or gender signifiers (the latter being a risk when one erects a statue of a human figure) allows the memorial to stand for all who served and sacrificed. Maya Lin's work, in particular, is notable becuase it was controversial at the time for being "too" modern and abstract, but in due course has stood out as being among the most moving (and most visited) pieces of architecture in the nation's capital.

Nathan said...

I read about this a week or two ago. If memory serves (and it may not), the cross was put up by one WWI Vet pretty much in the middle of nowhere because he lived nearby. It either wasn't Federal Property (or he didn't know it was) at the time. His friends and family have maintained the cross over the years (I think it was made out of cheap wood originally and has been replaced a couple of times.

Aside from Scalia trying to prove he's too stupid to live, I think this is one of those cases where anyone who is offended really ought to get out more. I can think of a whole lot of things that score higher on my list of things to get peevish about.

(If I'm remembering it wrong and need to be corrected, maybe I'll join the peeved. Just sayin'.)

treelobsters said...

I think what bugs me most is that Justice Scalia apparently doesn't know what a crescent moon is.

WendyB_09 said...

See, if it had been the stylized Maltese Cross that is in the VFW logo, no one would have objected. It would then be one of several honorariums using crosses that many miliary medals, honors & awards still use today.

But since it what is considered a traditional Christian cross...yep, you know in this day and age it's going to piss someone off.

It is a shame the Supremes are have to waste their time on something like this though. I'll guarantee they have much more pressing issues to decide.

Juan Federico said...

The only problem I see is that a bunch of self-important bigots (Scalia, Eliasberg, Buono, Salazar, et al.)are trying to have it their way.

That thing was not placed there to dishonor, denigrate or disparage anyone. It is a memorial to those who sacrificed for a war that our nation reluctantly entered. (for the most part) It also shows that at the time the WASP's had the most influence, so what?

If it is so important to be politically correct let's all turn Japanese (take that as you may)Be Polite Polite Polite, never stick out, don't try to be yourself and may the Gods help you if you leave a legacy for the future to look back upon; because somewhere, sometime, somehow, a jerk is gonna take your way of life to court because you've offended the simpering dog's sensibilities.

I kid you not, it makes me wanna go kick one of these guys really really hard.

I think i just figured out why I hate reading the news anymore.

There are much more important thing for SCOTUS to be working on, rather than being bulldogged into limiting leftovers from eras gone by.

And allow me to nominate the Somali pirates who attempted to take over a French naval vessel in place of these booger-brained slackers as the true 'Tard of the Week.

Janiece said...

Welcome, Steve. I'm a fan-girl of your comic, and I'm glad to see you here.

Thanks for your comments, everyone. While I have no beef with the monument in this particular case, I am a huge fan of the Establishment Clause, and I have to say that any case that strengthens the separation of church and state is usually a "win" in my book. So I think this particular case is pretty silly, but I suspect there are people who always feel that way about every establishment cause case.

And John, you're sounding a little "stabby," there, bud. Hee.

Juan Federico said...

Stabby, hey? Blush......

Jeri said...

This seems to me like good intentions and flawed execution, mixed with serious asshat after-the-fact reconsideration.

Steve Buchheit said...

Hmm, boy, I hope this employee doesn't go to Gettysburg, they're going to be very disappointed.

Although, yeah, pretty dumb thing for somebody supposedly so smart to say aloud.

The difference, to me, is that a non-governmental organization paid for the monument, and while it makes me sad they varied from their own identity system, it is a private statement. I think it's in dubious taste, and is explicitly exclusionary, but it's a private statement. If the park service denied a request of another group which wanted to erect a monument with other symbols there would be a direct case (or if there were no more room for memorials, an indirect case).

Somebody needs to press the reset button on Justice Scalia, he's been in blue screen of death mode for some time now.