I’m a subscriber to The Nation; I’ve been reading your magazine for two to three years. The March 7 issue is impressive and, in my opinion, the best one I’ve seen so far. Of particular merit are the group of articles concerning Antonin Scalia. “Supreme Court Showdown,”
by Nan Aron and Kyle C. Barry;
“Scalia’s Weak Legacy,” by David Cole; “Homophobe Supreme,” by Natalie Pattillo; and “The Justice Set in Cement,” by Katha Pollitt, are not only essential reading for lifelong Democrats like myself—they are also a clear presentation of how much damage a 30-year tenure for the wrong person on the Supreme Court can inflict.
I greatly applaud David Cole’s analysis of originalism and its limitations as a school of judicial thought [“Scalia’s Weak Legacy”]. I don’t think originalism deserves as much respect as Mr. Cole seems to give it, but I enjoyed his article very much.
The problem, of course, is that Scalia was an originalist only when it led to a result he desired. For example, he was all about states’ rights when the Justice Department wanted to enforce the Voting Rights Act, but not so much when Florida actually wanted to count the ballots that would have resulted in President Al Gore. I see Scalia as a corporate whore with a bad temper: very articulate, but willing to absolutely savage his colleagues when they disagreed with his results-oriented brand of jurisprudence. May we never see his like (at least on the Supreme Court) again!
When the primary campaigns began earlier this year, I wrote a letter to The Nation on the importance of choosing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, and the first issue I mentioned was the Supreme Court appointments that the next president will make. This is why I was utterly dismayed by your subsequent support for Bernie Sanders, a candidate with no chance of winning the presidency.