By RU Twisted and BK
GD: In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, I’ve read nearly every angle about what it means—or, more specifically, what it could mean for the country’s immediate future.
Interestingly enough, one of the most heated debates I have had about his legacy was with a fellow libertarian-thinker in our hodge-podge group of Rhino Den and UA writers. But instead of keeping that behind closed doors, we felt it would be best to share it with you, the readers, and let you decide:
Was Justice Scalia a menace or a hero to liberty? 
BK: Certainly both. While I was not a fan of some of his, I didn’t picture him as Doctor Evil type plotting the destruction of America from his Moon base. When he supported and individual’s right to bear arms, I was a fan. When he supported an individual’s protections from unlawful search and seizure, I was a fan. When he thought the government could legally throw a citizen in jail for what they did with another consenting adult or for growing a plant, I was most certainly not a fan.
As of right now, because of those last two things (and more like them) I view his removal from office as a good thing.
Where am I going wrong?
GD: Where you’re going wrong is in the fact that you recently said the original Road Warrior with Mel Gibson wasn’t that great of a movie. I find that to be the same as supporting communism.
But more to the point on Scalia—was he anti-bromance? Yeah, that much is pretty clear. What isn’t, however, is why he was against men doing the naked pretzel with other men—at least in a legal sense. And at a cursory glance, it appears his dissent in the famous Lawrence v Texas case has as much to do with his questioning of whether or not SCOTUS even had a role to play in setting this precedence as it did with his own personal views of morality. And herein lies a massive problem with our judicial system as a whole. They’re all so mired in case law and “rational basis” for said law that no one outside of a professional legalist has any idea what some of these rulings even mean.
BK: But is not that literally what SCOTUS is supposed to do? When hard questions get asked and no one else has a good answer, we dig out the nine really old lawyers we keep locked up for just such an occasion; then they mull it over presumably with butterscotch candies and Metamucil and then they tell the rest of us what the government can and cannot do.
GD: Theoretically, yes. But do you really want a system so convoluted that only a bunch of lifetime lawyers can figure it out? Did you ever watch LA Law?
Listen, I get the intent. Have a “judicial branch” whose purpose is to act as a check and balance against other powers. But when the whole show is so incredibly complicated that 9 of the supposed “best” people at understanding it have wildly different opinions on what their purpose even is, then who decides one is better or worse than the other? And when the whole group of 9 usually ends up just validating the other branches, does it even matter?
BK: Probably not. But, what say you to this: If Obama is to replace Scalia effectively with this Congress, it’s going to have to be a very moderate candidate that no one likes which means they will (ideally) vote along party lines less which is exactly what we need on the court. I think that guarantee becomes less likely with any of the candidates going into this election cycle.
I want a justice who values liberty above all else, not someone like Scalia who is willing to sacrifice the freedom of millions of Americans simply to appease his strict belief that the Constitution alone is capable of dealing with 21st Century and beyond issues.
If you could choose his ideal replacement, who would you choose? 
GD: Let’s be honest: no potential President is going to nominate a decent Justice. Whether it’s a President Obama, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, or Cruz, all of these characters are most likely going to nominate another Anthony Kennedy-type who is just a big fat “meh” on freedom and pretty gung ho on granting more authority to the federal government in most cases. That’s the biggest problem with this whole situation—any realistic scenario for replacement has a pretty dismal outlook.
Which brings me to my ideal candidate: since Lemmy from Motorhead just passed away, I’d argue that Judge Andrew Napolitano is the best guy out there, given that his default on every imaginable topic is individual liberty, first and foremost. That would be a welcome change.
BK: He sounds like my kind of guy. I think I’ll hold out hope for Ryan Reynolds in character as Deadpool to be announced, though.
GD: There is literally no way that could be worse than what’s coming, I’m afraid.
So be blunt: what was the absolute worst thing about Scalia, and does that have a potential of being better with a new guy?
BK: I would say it has to be where he sided with the rights of the government to literally outlaw blowjobs. That has to be the worst thing he did that makes me have zero respect for him as a man. You cannot in one breath tell me I have the right to bear arms to defend myself not only day to day, but also from a tyrannical government, but then in your next breath tell me that you’re okay with the government making blowjobs illegal (but then in your third breath saying they would need a warrant to catch me). I mean good lord man, is it that hard to remain consistent with freedom? Did he really think Thomas Jefferson would’ve wanted blowjobs illegal? Because I really doubt it!
Though In reality, even with abortion or gay marriage or any other of the major topics he opined or voted on, I don’t think any vote had more potential historical significance (and potentially none worse) than his vote in Bush v Gore. I say this having voted myself for Bush in 04. I don’t believe Gore invades Iraq and well, we know how those dominos fell (and continue to fall.)
I have hope that someone new, and someone who would be acceptable to both parties would have to be, by definition, better than such an inflexible man.
GD: Don’t get me wrong—the man was not without his flaws, and inconsistency on liberty seemed to be one of them. I’m personally opposed to that in every instance (his view on executive power being another area of questionability). But I’ll offer two caveats that hopefully broadens the perspective on this.
One, as pointed out above, his reasoning for voting the way he did regarding same-sex relations seems to have as much to do with who gets to decide what as it does with his own personal stance on whether it’s right or wrong. It may very well have been (given several of his statements) that he believed the Supreme Court had no business ruling on that topic whatsoever; thus he ruled the way he did. Does that make it right? Not what I’m saying at all—simply that it’s (sadly) more convoluted than him just being a (insert slur here) like many have accused him of being. 
Two, I have a very difficult time imagining anyone realistically being appointed now that would be—at least overall—better for the cause of liberty. While I’m vehemently opposed to any vote against individual freedom, I see even bigger dangers in cases where the government’s power is expanded on recklessly disastrous economic policies like, say, Obamacare. Do I want both ruled in favor of liberty? Absolutely. But given the option, I’ll take a justice who is ideologically opposed to giant boondoggles that affect the bank accounts of every American in a negative way.
Closing thoughts?
BK: I thoroughly enjoy the word boondoggle and am with you in that I want our government not involved in them. That said I think I still value individual liberty even with the only other option being the complete and total collapse of America. If we freely march ourselves to destruction, so be it. The next generation will rise from our ashes better for having learned that lessons from our mistakes as it has every time in history. And my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I’ve been practicing my fiddle playing lately and really want to show off.
GD: Let it never be said that I in any way doubted your fiddle playing ability. I look forward to it as we watch the upcoming Presidential race unfold in all its horror.
I’m curious to hear the thoughts from the Unapologetically American faithful on this one.
The post Scalia: Menace or Hero to Liberty? appeared first on Unapologetically American.