To the Editor:
Re “Resetting the Post-Scalia Supreme Court,” by Linda Greenhouse (Op-Ed, Feb. 18):
What a refreshingly candid appraisal of the pros and cons of Justice Antonin Scalia’s effect on the Supreme Court and our country.
While it is always fair to praise someone’s accomplishments at his death, it is also appropriate to weigh the balance of his legacy. Inarguably brilliant, Justice Scalia—like all of us—left a mixed record in his long tenure, and his impact on the Supreme Court and on our culture is not uniformly to be praised.
I once heard Justice Scalia speak at the City Club in Cleveland: He was articulate and brilliant, and had a scathing sense of humor. I asked a question, and he sidestepped it to deliver a powerful answer on a facet he cared more about than my question’s focus. Sometimes his dissents read the same way.
While we should acknowledge his many accomplishments, Ms. Greenhouse is right to urge us to “reset” the role of the court away from the “originalism” of the dead document that Justice Scalia fought so hard to impose on the next generation.
If we were to follow his philosophy, where would women and blacks be today: still treated as the second-class citizens and slaves of our founding fathers?
JAMES S. BERKMAN
Boston
Note from KBJ: Hell hath no fury like James S. Berkman snubbed.
Note 2 from KBJ: James S. Berkman might want to read the United States Constitution. It provides for its own amendment. "Dead document" indeed!
