Scalia, J., dissenting
really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis. *** Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”[1] With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them–with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court–we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
- ↑ The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).
