Justices of the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia is seated second from left |
How a politically conservative Justice like Scalia sees the Constitution
versus how a liberal Justice like Ginsburg or Breyer sees it can help explain this phenomenon.
Liberals on the bench see the Constitution as a living
breathing document that was never meant to be interpreted based on the conditions
extant at the time it was written. They claim that what the framers of
constitution had in mind was that it should be a relative document. One that
would adjust with the spirit of the times. So that an amendment like the right to bear arms
had a different meaning then than it does now. The framers never intended the
second amendment to be rigidly applied if conditions changed. Which is the case
today where handguns are so frequently used to commit crimes. That right is –
after all - prefaced with the words, ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State…’
Conservatives are strict constructionists or ‘Originalists’
(as Scalia called them). They see the constitution to be followed as the framers
originally intended. They see interpretation
based on current circumstances as a virtual elimination of the founders intent.
Once you start factoring modern sensibilities, you can turn the constitution on
its head. For example the recent Obergfell decision by the court declaring same sex marriage protected by the
equal protection clause - a right that surely was not extended to this
circumstance by the framers the 14th Amendment.
It is this mindset that Orthodox Jews see when they evaluate
who they support for the three branches of government. (Only two of which are directly
in their hands. The members of the Supreme Court are in the hands of the President
along with the advice and consent of the congress. But indirectly the voters do
have a say in whom they elect that make those decisions.)
For Orthodox Jews the decisions that follow the conservative
political perspective are usually the ones that fall in line with their
religious perspective.
The liberal and conservative
view of the constitution as being rigid or fluid is similar to the way Orthodox
Jews and heterodox Jews see the Torah.
For example the Torah is clear about the nature of homosexual sexual relationships being
a serious violation of Halacha. Heterodoxy has gone to great lengths to
re-interpret the Torah to practically praise that kind of relationship.
The views of the founding fathers were surely more attentive
to traditional biblical values than are today’s liberals. So it is easy to
understand why so many Orthodox Jews are politically conservative as well. This
is true not only about Orthodox Jews but other faiths as well. At least those
that see the fundamental dictates of the bible as something not to be tampered
with.
How do I see it? Although I tend towards the more
conservative perspective I am neither strict constructionist nor a liberal
constructionist. I do not consider every word in the constitution inviolable the
way I see the Torah. But I do believe that if we are going to have orderly
society of any longevity we must have a set of guiding principles that with
rare exception should not be reinterpreted because they don’t fit popular
notions of acceptability.
Although I tend more conservative, on some issues I am more
liberal. I am for example in favor of stricter gun control. I am also in favor of abortion rights. I am
opposed to putting any restriction on abortion since there are instances where an
abortion is permitted Halachcly. I do not want the government dictating when a
Jewish woman may or may not have an abortion. I want Halacha to do that. To
quote former President Bill Clinton, I think abortion should be safe,
legal, and rare.
That said, I understand the opposition by some Orthodox advocacy
groups like Agudah. They want to prevent abortion from becoming a means or birth
control. While abortion is permitted under some circumstances it should not be
treated as a mere medical procedure affecting only the woman it is performed
upon.
The fetus is not given any value at all today except as possible
body parts to be used by other patients. In my view it is immoral to see a
fetus in this way. While Judaism does not see abortion as murder it does consider it sinful
to destroy a potential human life. Abortion is only allowed under very specific
circumstances mostly having to do with health of the mother. But because of that contingency
we ought to support abortion rights despite the way it is so commonly used.
I am therefore somewhere between a strict constructionist
and a liberal constructionist. (There it is again… my Centrist penchant for
seeing things in grey tones rather than in black and white ones.)
I for one am going to miss Scalia. He was a brilliant jurist
even according to his ideological opponent. I hope his replacement will have
the same judicial philosophy. If the Supreme Court is going to err, I would
prefer it erred on the side of strict construction. Because even in those rare
cases where I might disagree with a particular decision, the majority of them
will align with my views.
The courts remaining members of the Supreme Court are equally
divided: 4 conservatives and 4 liberals.
The President will no doubt nominate a liberal to fill the vacancy. But that
nominee will no doubt be blocked by a Republican congress that will not confirm
the nomination. That means the next President
will ultimately make that decision. When voting for the next President, that
ought to be foremost in everyone’s mind.