Feb 21, 2016

Toobin's Attack on Scalia Seethes with Racist and Religious Bigotry

Here, Jeffrey Toobin, the legal reporter for the New Yorker magazine, takes the occasion of Scalia's death to attack him. No general appreciations of Scalia's universally acknowledged warmth, wit or wisdom, nothing but vitriol.

I expect as much from leftist ideologues like Toobin (and Obama, who couldn't be bothered to put on a tie to make his announcement of Scalia's death. He only dresses anymore to meet with his beloved anti-police rioters and dictators like Castro.) But the depth of Toobin's hatred leads him accidentally to expose his inner racist and religious bigotries.

For example, he attacks Scalia's originalism because it showed Scalia believed "the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century."

Now, is there any non-racist theory on which the race of the ratifiers counts as a reason not to be an originalist? If he had limited himself to slave holders, I might see a case for him. But, does the fact that a law or an idea originates with a white man, a black man, an Arab, etc., does it somehow contaminate it? Does Toobin think that we ought not to consider the abolitionists' intent because they were white and some of them once owned slaves? Should we discount what Jefferson meant in the Declaration of Independence because it is contaminated by his race and slave holding? Is there a realm of ideas that we can relate to without focusing on the race and personal history of the person who originated it? Ad hominem, indeed.

Next, he attacks Scalia for reading the Washington Times because it is "owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church." How does he get away with this? Arthur Sulzberger owns the New York Times. Should we be pointing out his religion to people? Should that count one way or another? He's an Episcopalian. Do we need to find out the religious beliefs of the owners of the New Yorker? Toobin's religion? Should newspapers and books covers be printed with the religions and races of the owners of the publishers and the writers so that we can make sure there aren't any bad races or bad religious beliefs contaminating what's written?

Toobin says Scalia was devoted to making American "less tolerant." Less tolerant than a New Yorker reporter who complains about racial taint and impugns newspapers because of the religious beliefs of their owners? Thanks, Toobin, if that's what you believe, I'll stick with Scalia.

No comments:

Post a Comment