On the Supreme Court, Being "One Smart Guy" Is Not Enough

I posted late last night my take on Senator Reid's appearance on MTP. I am underwhelmed but willing to give the guy a chance. On the positive side (Social Security "privatization", calling the chimp a liar, and not allowing Russert to diminsih the influence of the caucus) he was ok. But on the negative side, he's got some splaining to do. Reid's positions on abortion and gay marriage left a lot to be desired. But his take on Supreme Court nominations warrants a little further discussion.

In stating that the President should first consult with him before sending up a name is right, as was his comment about Clarence Thomas. But what his answer signalled about Scalia was bizarre. One more time:

RUSSERT: Let me turn to judicial nominations.

Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, November 19: "If they" -- the Bush White House -- "for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they gave us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his decisions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."

Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems, you've talked about them, every reporter has talked about them in town, where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this.

I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.

Here is what one smart guy has to say about judges who philosophically disagree with the death penalty:

Addressing students at Georgetown University last week, Scalia argued that Catholic judges who believe the church's teaching that capital punishment is wrong should not be on the bench, stating that "any Catholic jurists (with such concerns) ... would have to resign."

Yeah he is smart, but that isn't enough to qualify him or anyone for the highest court in the land. Real battles are fought regarding our rights in trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. We can debate whether the Supreme Court has as much influence over our lives as congress or the executive branch (see Jeffrey Rosen in yesterday's NYT Sunday Mag) but what seems beyond debate is whether a court full of Scalias makes a difference to people that believe they have a right to privacy. More later.