Justice Scalia has for many years lead a very public life, during which nobody I know of before this has described him *quite* as being ...

"... a theocratic intellectual zombie, a strange creature from the ranks of the undead, a creature that belongs at the benighted court of the medieval imperial Pope..."

...which leads me to believe you might be reading a *bit* much into his comments.

In fact as I tried to match what you wrote about what he wrote to what he actually did write in his rather calm and reasoned piece, I wondered whether you were responding to some parody of it that appeared in the Onion or someplace, because aside from a few serious misrepresentations I could hardly find anything that matched at all.

"Does Antonin Scalia really think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were moral cretins...?"

"Is Antonin Scalia about to abjure his oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States..."

"We know that Scalia condemns Martin Luther King, Jr. as a moral cretin..."

"There seems to be no stopping point before the equivalent of Nero..."

"It is idolatrous. It is blasphemous....." Etc., etc.

Simple hysteria, at the end of bad hair day?

Or is this just another example of how when a white male of conservative bent in public office mentions religion in a public forum in this day and age of ours, he can expect a stream of vitriol and bogus accusations to be aimed at him such as would be deemed most politically incorrect in almost any other imaginable circumstance. What with the way our modern liberal thinkers so value tolerance, inclusiveness, fair consideration of the other person's point of view, and all. ;-)

You know, Justices Scalia and Ginsburg regularly attend the opera together (as they like it rather more than their spouses do) and once even together played as extras onstage for a Washington opening night performance.

Do you really think a good liberal like Justice Ginsburg would choose to spend her free time being seen in public so enjoying the company of a walking undead medieval theocrat intellectual zombie?

Yes. It's called the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.

And the objections being raised are quite clearly not due to Scalia mentioning his religious beliefs, but to what his beliefs appear to be.

Barry

Justice Scalia is holding Justice Ginsburg hostage? Who knew?

Paul's comments regarding the State must be considered in conjunction with Jesus' statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." We are to obey our rulers when they are acting within their legitimate authority. But when Caesar tries to take what is not his - what rightfully belongs to God or the individual - we must not submit. The biblical precedent for this principle is in the first half of the Book of Daniel and the accounts of prophets such as Elijah and Jeremiah who held lawbreaking kings in check (and usually got murdered for it).

Living in obedience to legitimate authority also means that we must rely on due process to seek redress of grievances. There are set procedures for appealing wrongful convictions, seeking justice for police brutality, and filing FOIA requests. One can conclude that armed insurrection is warranted only when due process has completely evaporated; the Declaration of Independence reflects this sentiment.

"That to resist a tyrant is not to resist God, nor yet His ordinance." - John Knox

For the record, I happen to be a white male of conservative/libertarian bent.

Paul, in the sense that Ginsberg has had to work with Scalia, and IIRC, Ginsberg joined a court with Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor already on it.

Barry

So, Scalia announces in America's leading theocon rag that he would vote down any federal ban on abortion as an unconstitutional power-grab, and he gets called out as a theocratic intellectual zombie. Man, this is a tough crowd. :)

Really, I think that Scalia is just to his same old tricks: he says something that is substantively uncontroversial in a maximally offensive tone, in order to make his outraged opponents look foolish. Honestly, I am astonished that Brad fell for it. His argument, stripped of its sneering tone, is simply this: a) he has taken an oath to preserve the Constitution, b) he also believes he must respect the teaching of the Church. If Church doctrine and the Constitution collide, he thinks it's wrong to let his personal morals take precedence over the Constitution. The proper course is to resign his position and become politically active, up to and including armed revolution against a sufficiently evil government. (He says exactly this in the 8th paragraph of his essay.)

Ths is hardly a medieval position: he is saying that "...a republic is a 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'" (John Adamns, "Thoughts on Government") This is the core insight of liberal, Enlightenment jursiprudence. And Scalia, who is very proudly yesterday's man, has completely internalized it. Why exactly do you think this is a problem?

"The powers that be are ordained of God" is a *very* medieval position. And if you are going to use St. Paul to condemn Martin Luther King for failing to obey the segregationist laws of his time--as Scalia explicitly does--that has implications for Scalia's judgment of what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did: implications that I cannot see how Scalia can evade.

In truth, "the powers that be are ordained of God" was a very common text on which to preach a sermon in medieval Europe. But Scalia's is the first I have seen that preaches on it in modern America.

Wow, that's one impressive piece of conservative astroturf there, Doosey.

I think Brad oversells the piece, but when it contains stuff like the following, he's on the right track:

'The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals has adverse effects in other areas as well. It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law—even if it does not compel him to act unjustly—need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. “Ye must needs be subject,” he said, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” For conscience sake. The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible. We have done that in this country (and continental Europe has not) by preserving in our public life many visible reminders that—in the words of a Supreme Court opinion from the 1940s—“we are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” These reminders include: “In God we trust” on our coins, “one nation, under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, the opening of sessions of our legislatures with a prayer, the opening of sessions of my Court with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” annual Thanksgiving proclamations issued by our President at the direction of Congress, and constant invocations of divine support in the speeches of our political leaders, which often conclude, “God bless America.” All this, as I say, is most un–European, and helps explain why our people are more inclined to understand, as St. Paul did, that government carries the sword as “the minister of God,” to “execute wrath” upon the evildoer.'

That passage flat-out states the power of democratic government is derived from god. Which, mind you, is a pretty damn odd opinion for a supreme court justice to have.

I note that 'The Man without Qualities' doesn't seem to have comments enabled on his blog. Hmmm.

Professor Delong,

While you may be well within your rights to delete comments from your blog as you see fit, it might be a good idea to post some guidelines for your comments section. Let me suggest perhaps just reminding your readers to agree with everything you write.

Certainly, that may be a tad blunt, but at least it's more intellectually honest than the way you've behaved today in regards to comments posted by "Robert Musil." One has to wonder out loud how one of your students with the temerity to disagree with you would be treated in your classroom.

Dear Professor DeLong,

I really enjoy your blog, and I think you have a lot of interesting things to say. That Robert Musil is so, well, impolite - I'm glad you deleted his thoughts! I wanted to give him a good, hard shake, he made me so MAD.

I would never dream of comparing you to Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Mussolini! That is so RUDE.

However (and please don't take this the wrong way), every so often - just once in a while, you understand - I am tempted to slip in a little thought along the lines of suggesting that you may be just a little bit of a theocratic intellectual zombie, a strange creature from the ranks of the undead, a creature that belongs at the benighted court of the medieval imperial Pope.

Is that OK? Would you delete my comment if I wrote that?

Also, I know you are very busy. But when you have some time in your hectic schedule of a Berkeley on-the-go left-wing activist professor, could you post a list of all the people we ARE allowed to compare you to - so we can avoid being rude like that terrible Mr. Musil? Is it OK to compare you to, say, Liberace, but maybe Motley Crue or Richard Strauss would be going too far?

Again, I love you blog. I'm one of your biggest fans!

You scare the **** out of me. Today's example is your political theology. You suggest nobody is subject to higher powers. You criticize Justice Scalia for saying rulers should not do evil as determined by higher law, and for saying that rulers should act for their conscience’s sake.

Scalia never says he is talking about a king or other unelected ruler, but you deliberately misconstrue him that way. What Antonin Scalia is saying controls civil authority -- what is "ordained of God" and is "the minister of God... for good... [and] to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" — is fundamental, natural, unalienable, divine right. You know perfectly well that Justice Scalia is in no way suggesting that “the Principate, the government of the Roman Empire under the Julio-Claudian dynasty, than lurching its downward progress from Augustus to Nero” would be tolerable law today. But you write the opposite.

The assumption that "what the individual citizen considers an unjust law... need not be obeyed" is not just Justice Scalia’s view – it is the proper view of the government of the United States and every other legitimate government.

Nor does Antonin Scalia say anything that suggests he believes that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were “moral cretins,” or that George III was ordained-by-God. Perhaps there is a moral cretin (I use your language) in the mix here, but it’s not Jefferson, Washington or Scalia.

You are a truly loathsome toad (I use your language) to suggest that Antonin Scalia, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is about to abjure his oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the rest of that blather you serve up.

Nor does Scalia say anything about Martin Luther King, Jr. being a “moral cretin” - as you deliberately misrepresent. But how much further do you go? There seems to be no stopping point before you equate Scalia with Nero. Is the deranged, insane, murderous Nero somehow morally superior to Hitler, Mussolini or other more recent mass killers?

You are repulsively unAmerican to state that this Justice believes that Charles de Gaulle is to be condemned for his rebellion against the collaborationist French government of Philippe Petain and Pierre Laval. They were collaborating with HITLER. YOU said that Justice Scalia opposes people who collaborated with HITLER. You are loathsome (again, your language).

You begin by criticizing Justice Scalia’s reference to Christian text, but incoherently go on to say “there is something profoundly wrong about Scalia's worship of the state.”

You are blasphemous. You are unAmerican. In each case I use your words.

An American would--all Americans would, I think--say with Scalia that what is the power that is the government must abide by the holy, and that includes honoring the inalienable rights with which we have been endowed and which Scalia reveres as enduring – and therefor not subject to judicial reinvention of the type of which you approve.

But it gets, if possible, even worse: You reject Justice Scalia’s modest view of his role to construe and apply the law. You endorse an arrogant and imperial judiciary that rewrites the Constitution and legislation according to its whim. Your views are profoundly antidemocratic and dangerous.

I mean, what is this? Your web site says you had lots of influence over Clinton Administration economic policies while you held public office. God help us all.

Eric, you need to take a look at my comment policy.

I'm not paid enough for this to let my own internet space be taken up by people who compare me to Mussolini--particularly when they can't spell Mussolini.

In addition, I think that the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher this way...

Brad DeLong

"Thomas Jefferson" seems to need to reread what St. Paul said...

Brad DeLong

JIm Glass says:

>>when a white male of conservative bent in public office mentions religion in a public forum in this day and age of ours, he can expect a stream of vitriol and bogus accusations to be aimed at him such as would be deemed most politically incorrect in almost any other imaginable circumstance

I think he needs to think carefully, carefully about the implications of Scalia's endorsement of St. Paul's statement that one is under a powerful moral obligation imposed by God to obey the laws--the unjust laws--of regimes as tyrannical as (and possibly even those more tyrannical than) Nero's. That's a shocking doctrine, with shocking implications.

Brad DeLong

re;

>>The assumption that "what the individual citizen considers an unjust law... need not be obeyed" is not just Justice Scalia’s view – it is the proper view of the government of the United States and every other legitimate government.

Except that what St. Paul says makes no mention of "legitimate." It is not legitimate powers that are ordained of God. It is powers. There is a *big* difference.

Brad DeLong

If the false "Thomas Jefferson" had even the slightest acquaintance with my thoughts, words, and deeds, he would have been too ashamed to try to associate my name with his craven bootlicking of the priests.

For the clergy have always feared me. They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

The idea that I would have any truck with that St. Paul who claimed that God commands us to obey tyrants like Nero, or with that Antonin Scalia who uses St. Paul's text as a Holy Writ, is impudent and nonsensical.

Thomas Jefferson

DeLong notes that Scalia takes hold of St. Paul's claim that it is a sin against God to disobey government, even the government of as great a tyrant as Nero, and uses it to condemn the American practice of civil disobedience, as exemplified by Martin Luther King, Jr. DeLong notes that the unjust laws against which King fought were severe, and that his "rebellion" was limited and peaceful.

If Scalia condemns this as immoral, DeLong asks, how much more must Scalia condemn the likes of George Washington? The tyranny exercised by George III was much less harsh. Washington's response, encompassing rebellion and treason, was a much greater crime against the established order.

Doesn't Scalia's using St. Paul to judge and condemn Martin Luther King mean that Scalia must judge and condemn George Washington much more harshly for sins against God's commands? This is the question that DeLong asks.

I believe that the answer to this question is, "No." Scalia does not judge and condemn George Washington much more harshly. Scalia is not, after all, a very deep or subtle thinker. His eminence among American conservatives is similar to the eminence of a molehill located on a flat plain. To Scalia, St. Paul's doctrine is a club to use to attack Martin Luther King. It has probably never crossed his mind that adoption of St. Paul's position has other powerful implications. Intellectual consistency, understood as the belief that principles are to be applied not just where it is convenient but everywhere, is foreign to the nature of a vulgar ideologue like Scalia.

Karl Marx

What is a papist like Antonin Scalia doing quoting from the *King James* version of the Bible? That is not an authorized or authoritative translation for Roman Catholics. No Catholic bishop or priest has ever approved of his flock's reading it.

Unless, in modern day America, the Reformation has gone so far that even the Catholics are really Protestants?

Adam Smith

Why is a judge's personal opinion of the morality of civil disobedience supposed to matter to us, again? I thought a judge was supposed to uphold the law even when he approves of the motives of those who defy it. To the extent that Scalia's statolatry matters at all, it makes him more rather than less likely to do his duty.

C'mon, Prof. It's not as if Scalia cited this as a prototype of his judicial policy. This is roughly equivalent to you saying something like, say, "Woman; can't live with 'em" and someone else using that as evidence that you're anti-woman. Holding up a quote someone has used in a speech as a placeholder for their entire belief system is an example of wrong-headedness in the extreme.

David Perron wrote:

>>Holding up a quote someone has used in a speech as a placeholder for their entire belief system is an example of wrong-headedness in the extreme

Ummm.... No. Think of it this way: Scalia's speech is a sermon on the 13th chapter of Romans. It's not a quote added to ornament an argument. It's the core foundation of the argument itself.

Brad DeLong

That 'In truth, "the powers that be are ordained of God" was a very common text on which to preach a sermon in medieval Europe.' is well known, even among intellectual zombie conservative Christians.

But when you say "But Scalia's is the first I have seen that preaches on it in modern America." it shows you to be incredibly ignorant on a subject that you write upon as if you consider yourself to be an expert. Perhaps the next time it rains someone will lead you away from your computer and you will get to see your very first rainbow.

Did it ever occur to you that the bible says the same things now that it did in the midlle ages - and before? Or that conservative christians read the bible and believe what it says? Is this a new concept to you? Does it somehow shock you?

You have another example of a sermon on Romans 13 preached in modern America to offer?

Brad DeLong

As a Jew of Libertarian bent, I find this stuff interesting in an anthropological way, but I have a practical question for folks reading down this far:

Does Scalia's piece now make it impossible for him to get promoted to Chief Justice when Rehnquist (77) steps down?

George

That's an interesting but rather academic question. The CJ is still just one vote. Who remembers anything written by the CJ while Holmes and Brandeis were on the Court? Footnotes and cites - nothing more than legal practice requires.

A more immediate question is whether DeLong's performance on this blog, especially this post, now makes it impossible for him to get another Executive Branch appointment, or even a non-academic state government appointment - whether you like DeLong or nor.

His views here would make him a lightning rod for the religious right - and probably scare away almost any politician as too much suggestive of a loose cannon. Why does he say these things? I think he's all but finished in the any significant Government service.

Which is too bad for him, since he seems to have liked his last stint. He seems proud of his work for Hillary, but she's never said anything in public like this (and without even being paid for it). Can you see Senator Lieberman supporting DeLong after Lieberman's take on the 9th Cir "pledge of allegiance" case?

I think the right word is "radioactive".

Maybe Professor DeLong will say a few words on this for us.

I actually can't see any senator standing up and saying: "St. Paul said that the powers that be--even if they are tyrants as vicious as the Emperor Nero--are ordained of God, and God hates it if you disobey their laws or rebel against them." Belief in Romans 13 does entail belief that George Washington did a bad thing in founding this country--and also that attempts to overthrow communist dictatorships at the end of the 1980s were bad things as well.

So the thing that really does surprise me is that Scalia is willing to say that he does believe in Romans 13.

Brad DeLong

>>Did it ever occur to you that the bible says the same things now that it did in the midlle ages - and before? Or that conservative christians read the bible and believe what it says? Is this a new concept to you? Does it somehow shock you?

Well, yes, it does shock me: I thought Americans believed that tyrannical governments were to be resisted and fought, not obeyed because it pleased God that they be obeyed.

Brad DeLong

RE: "I actually can't see any senator standing up and saying: 'St. Paul said that the powers that be--even if they are tyrants as vicious as the Emperor Nero--are ordained of God, and God hates it if you disobey their laws or rebel against them.'"

Perhaps you are correct.

But to return to Senator Lieberman (just as an example): He is a deeply religious man, and routinely cites to the Torah to legitimize his political actions (I am not saying that is wrong.) He cites to Torah, noit St Paul, but the Torah governments were every bit as undemocratic as anything Paul describes.

I am not a Christian, but I can see lots of mischief that could be made for you out of these posts. And I don't see Senators caring to bother about someone who gratuitously takes on a huge religious group in hot language that can be easily taken out of context.

You are the captain of your own ship, Professor DeLong. But I hope you are prepared for a very rough time if you ever expect to serve in appointed office again.

Good luck to you, but don't give up your day job while you wait.

First of all, the CJ post is important because of its role in allocating responsibilities among the jurists.

Secondly, the example of Lieberman is enlightening. As an orthodox male, for many years he daily donned ritual leather straps (not comfortable, I've done it) and chanted prayers, including one to the effect of: "I thank the lord I was not born a woman". IIRC, he claims to have stopped doing this sometime before getting the VP nomination, but it speaks to how literally reading ancient religious tracts into modern contexts can be....offputting.

Thirdly, our cordial blogmeister need not fret about this thread walling off future government appointments. This material is way too obtuse and theocratically technical to warrant scrutiny. Not to mention that it bears little practical weight in the Prof. DeLong's economic specialties.

George (or Professor DeLong can answer, too),

You make some good points. What do you think about this argument that I notice on Professor DeLong's "Privacy Policy" post (comment by John Nast):

"In addition, suppose someone wrote about Senator Lieberman, who often quotes from the Torah in political contexts, that his quoting showed him to be a theocratic intellectual zombie, a strange creature from the ranks of the undead, a creature that belongs at the benighted court of the medieval Prague Rabbis. Everyone would know the author of such a comment is a raving anti-semite, and it wouldn't matter if he pretended to put on a fig leaf that he was just making some 'reductio ad absurdem' argument."

I would be very distrubed to see such a comment about Senator Lieberman, regardless of the explanation. And I would be very worried that the author was a serious anti-semite. But I'm not sure if it carries over here. What do you think?

'But I'm not sure if it carries over here. What do you think?'

There's a difference between insulting/arguing against someone for their political opinions based and religion and their religious identity.

In the public sphere, it's not really acceptable to go in on someone for their faith as a Jew, Christian, or whatever. However, positions they take because of their religion can't be argued at actually the same level as positions not based in religion, right down to the same rhetorical overheating.

Take, for example: Ashcroft's anointing himself with holy oil when he's elected/appointed. I think it's kooky, but hey, it's a free country and has no effect on what he does in government. Poking at that is completely different than poking at, say, Ashcroft's using "God's will" as a justification for the death penalty.

There's something of a dangerous undercurrent brewing in america along the lines of "criticism of political opinions based in religion is off-limits. Only secular opinions can be criticized."

Jason,

You're certainly free to disagree, but as a Jew I would be alarmed (to say the least) to see someone refer to Senator Lieberman as "a theocratic intellectual zombie, a strange creature from the ranks of the undead, a creature that belongs at the benighted court of the medieval Prague Rabbis", and I would need quite a good explanation as to why the author of such a screed was not an anti-semite. In that case, your explanation would not be enough for me, personally, to accept.

When I say that I'm not sure if it carries over here, I'm refering to the distictive history of anti-semitism. That might make a difference.

George has also identified himself as Jewish. It would interesting to see what he thinks.

Well, after waaaaay too many hours surfing, lurking, and posting to various message boards over the years, I've developed a very detached perspective on how folks characterize each other across religious (and other) divides.

Having lost all my grandparents, and most of my aunts and uncles to Hitler's genocide, I have hyper-sensitive antennae when it comes to anti-semitism.

But, I've also learned that due to honest-to-G-d ignorance, many many people have no conception of how their language "looks" to Jews.

I rather enjoyed this passage: "a theocratic intellectual zombie, a strange creature from the ranks of the undead, a creature that belongs at the benighted court of the medieval Prague Rabbis".

Why? Not because I agreed with it, of course, but because it is a wonderful, if pungent, word picture.

To answer the obvious question of what would offend me, that's simple: Willfully false accusations, threats and violence.

The blood libel of Jews supposedly using the blood of gentile children to make matzoh, the Taliban ranting of killing Jews in America, and the still-astonishing passivity of New York's government during the Crown Heights pogrom of 1991 are examples.

Ex-that kind of stuff, I see tart barbs as an opportunity to learn about how Jews are seen in America. As a lifelong New Yorker, I am rather provincial in that regard.

George,

When an effort is made to limit someone's effectiveness and efforts in public office by reference to his Jewish religion or ethnicity, I cannot feel as relaxed as you do. And that's what this language would amount to.

I simply don't see why Jews have to wait until the pogrom is knocking down the door to take note of who is doing what to us, or talking about doing what to us.

And I think someone who would write that kind of language today would very likely be intending it as a specific reference to the blood libels of the Middle Ages.

That's the kind of thing I was thinking about when I said "I'm not sure if it carries over here."

The moment someone publicly tries to limit an American's effectiveness by referring to their religion, that person has lost the argument in 21st century America.

My casual attitude is ONLY in regard to private discourse and web chatter.

Bear in mind that part of the popular charicature of Jews is that we are thin-skinned. I've surprised many a Gentile with soft but well-reasoned replies to harsh speech. And convinced them that we ain't all bagel-eating, hook-nosed, money-grubbing, elite effite limousine liberals. ;)

I'm happy to continue soaking up Prof. DeLong's bandwidth here, but if you want to take this to email, hit me at georgez2@yahoo.com.

Hmm, let's try this again:

1: "X's argument is based in atheistic principles. As atheist principles are wrong, the argument is wrong regardless of the merits of the argument."
2: "X's argument is based in atheistic principles. The argument is wrong because it is flawed, independent of the principles it is based on."
3: "X is wrong because he's an atheist."

You can do a search and replace for atheist with any religion, it doesn't matter.

3) is offensive, 2) clearly isn't, and 1) is the issue in hand; I'd say the "theocratic intellectual zombie line is a case of 1). Basically: is stating that christian/judiac/atheist/catholic/buddhist/whatever principles are wrong offensive? I don't see how this is so.

In this case: Supreme Court justices are supposed to align laws and cases with the constitution; whether it's done based on "original intent," "plain meaning," or "evolving standards" is irrelevant here. Professor Delong used hyperbolic language to point out that the logical implementation of Scalia's views matched those of the medevial popes and attached courts, not the views of the founders. Namely, that people have a natural right to be free from unjust tyranny, as opposed to "all government is divinely ordained and rebellion against it is a sin."

In this case, Brad is stating that the specific medevial Catholic principle that "all government is divinely ordained and rebellion against it is a sin" is an unamerican one, as it directly contradicts the views of the founders.

Now, you can argue whether Scalia's statement really imply that he thinks all rebellion against government is sin. However, *if it does*, then the inescapable conclusion is that his views directly contradict those of the founders, and the Constitution, which is amazingly disturbing for someone who's job is to make sure government aligns itself with the views of the founders.

Erm, is this making sense?

Scalia frankly stated that he would never allow his personal morality to influence the judgements he makes on the court and later in his speech, Catholic Scalia criticised the modern-day teachings of the Church. (Not very comparable to your midevial pope analogy...) But I'd agree that "inescapable conclusion" is a particularly accurate way to describe the motivations of someone who describes his words as coming from a "theological zombie".

In arguing whether "Scalia really thinks all rebellion against a government is sin"...
it's best to actually read what he said.

"This is not the Old Testament, I emphasize, but St. Paul. One can understand his words as referring only to lawfully constituted authority, or even only to lawfully constituted authority that rules justly. But the core of his message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God. It is the “minister of God” with powers to “revenge,” to “execute wrath,” including even wrath by the sword (which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty). Paul of course did not believe that the individual possessed any such powers. Only a few lines before this passage, he wrote, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” And in this world the Lord repaid—did justice—through His minister, the state."

I'm sure that there those who will always insist that Scalia was arguing that government should NEVER be resisted rather than making the point that there is a difference between the moral authority of the state and that of individuals... but only because they cling to that "amazingly disturbing" conclusion with zombie-like intransigence. And sheer old-fashioned partisanship.

>>...you can argue whether Scalia's statements really imply that he thinks all rebellion against government is sin. However, *if it does*, the inescapable conclusion is that his views directly contradict those of the founders, and the Constitution, which is amazingly disturbing for someone who's job is to make sure government aligns itself with the views of the founders.

His job is not to make sure the government aligns itself with the views of the founders. Their views were all over the place.

His job is to make sure the government aligns itself with the Constitution. And one may recall that the founders in attendance at the Constitutional Convention specifically suppressed their views of the document that they expressed while drafting it, keeping them from the public so the document would have to be read within its four corners, precisely to prevent arguments along the lines of "But the founders meant ..."

Now, as to what the Constitution thinks of rebellion against the government, it is quite well settled that Constitution thinks it is a Very Bad Thing. (See 1860-64.)

Even when the rebels know in their hearts that they are right, as so many did then.

So as far as implementing the Constitution goes, there doesn't seem to be much conflict between 140+ years of precedent and today's theocratic zombie wing of the Court on *that* little point.

I was using "views of the founders" as shorthand for "the Constitution." And I thought was about civil disobediance (with the King bit), not open rebellion.

'I'm sure that there those who will always insist that Scalia was arguing that government should NEVER be resisted rather than making the point that there is a difference between the moral authority of the state and that of individuals'

Sure, he was making the point that the moral authorities of the state and the individual are not the same; I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion, but it's irrelevant. He clearly does imply that the moral authority of the state is derived from god, though, which is all that's necessary.

In this case: Supreme Court justices are supposed to align laws and cases with the constitution; whether it's done based on "original intent," "plain meaning," or "evolving standards" is irrelevant here. Professor Delong used hyperbolic language to point out that the logical implementation of Scalia's views matched those of the medevial popes and attached courts, not the views of the founders. Namely, that people have a natural right to be free from unjust tyranny, as opposed to "all government is divinely ordained and rebellion against it is a sin."

But what would it mean for a Supreme Court justice to "align laws and cases" with that conclusion? Would he have to vote to overturn all treason convictions, for example? Or would he only have to do that if he agrees that trying to overthrow the government of the United States is a worthy goal? Even if Prof. DeLong favors this, is the opposing view really far enough out of the mainstream to justify his hysterical denunciation of it?

I'd imagine he'd refrain from declaring MLK wrong for his civil-rights era disobediance. I think civil disobediance was the initial subject, not rebellion.

Unfortunately, though I think I remember hearing something like this previously, I can't for the life of me remember where the heck I saw it. Google doesn't give me anything but abortion-related stuff.

Well
I'd
like
to
say
one
thing
about
this
issue
"HUH?"

This biblical reference and Justice Scalia's view is totally correct. The 10 Commandments from the Book of Exodus say that, "Thou shalt have no other god before Me [God]," from the Christian viewpoint if goverment was mandating a law or whatever against the laws written in the Bible then government could/would be looked at as a 'god.' Therefore, whatever the government is mandating that goes against the Word of God, cannot be followed, but is to be done in a manner befitting a Christian.