- The Washington Times - Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Andrew Corso‘s letter “Irrelevant history” (Sunday) is itself irrelevant for three reasons. First, words mean something.

Mr. Corso details in his letter how Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion “was not about what is right, not about what is smart, nor about the best interests of the District.”

Only history will prove Justice Scalia right or wrong. But in over 218 years, thus far, history has yet to prove the Constitution wrong (unless the Supreme Court messes up another case, but I digress).

This is more than about the District. It’s about our basic rights. For all the hot air liberals spout about shredding the Constitution, that is exactly what would have happened had this decision gone the same disastrous way as Boumediene v. Bush - which gives terrorists caught on foreign battlefields, and who want to kill us in the name of their god - rights and attorneys. As Justice Scalia so aptly noted, “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”

Mr. Corso then states “… Associate Justice John Paul Stephens’ dissenting opinion smartly ignores such irrelevant history lessons and argues with the realities of the present era in mind.”

Second, history means something. It is the basis of everything we do in this country. It is the foundation upon which this country was built. A word that accurately describes it is precedent. Unfortunately, liberals don’t want to hear that. They only want words codified in law to mean what they want when they want, and damn the history behind it. It’s not fair. Picture the Constitution going into a shredder.

Last, and most important, this upcoming election means something. The next president will most likely seat two and perhaps three justices. All of our history, our precedent, will be “irrelevant” if judges like Justices John Paul Stephens, Stephen G. Breyer, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg are appointed, and not judges like Justices Antonin Scalia or Samuel A. Alito Jr., or Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Our future is meaningless if the judges who make these landmark decisions don’t rely on the past.



Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide