Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Supreme Dicta

Federal Judiciary

: Supreme Dicta

Justice Scalia and "24"

I read the following over at Salon (via Quiz Law):

Last June during a panel discussion in Ottawa about terrorism and the use of torture, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stood up for the TV torturer
extraordinaire and hero of Fox Broadcasting's "24." Scalia insisted that the fictional spy had "saved hundreds of thousands of lives" using tough interrogation tactics to stop a terrorist from nuking Los Angeles.

"Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?" Scalia scoffed. He went on to argue that when it comes to torture, "the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

First of all, I agree - we ought not to believe in absolutes (at least jurispudentially), which is why originalism is a CROCK. But when it comes to moral absolutes, it is a different story. I don't have a lot of moral absolutes, but torture is definitely on the list. Justice Scalia on the other hand, is either a moral relativist or a sadist.

Second, is it healthy for civic discourse to have Supreme Court justices commenting on a TV show? Nobody asked George W. what he thought of President Bartlet. Maybe Justice Scalia can elaborate and tell us why "Will and Grace" provides compelling evidence as to why the 14th Amendment should not protect gays from discrimination at a higher level of scrutiny.

The answer to Scalia's question, by the way, is "no" - a jury would not convict Jack Bauer. Not because the American people can stomach torture, but because if he were convicted, he would bust out of prison and torture all 12 jurors - within 24 hours.

Unless he gets pulled over for drunk driving first.

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on January 04, 2008 (boomark / email).