Every now and then, you read something that actually makes you think. And every now and then, you realize the president of the United States doesn't read.
I had such an epiphany Monday night, preparing for a philosophy of law examination on Tuesday morning. And by preparation, I mean to say that I finally cracked the assigned reading, which included Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's book, "A Matter of Interpretation."
You know Scalia. The man in the black robe famous for his so-called conservative views regarding how to interpret the meaning of constitutional and statutory law. After all, it is this judicial philosophy that supposedly has led Scalia to the opinions that homosexual sodomy, the right to an abortion and pornography are not protected by the Constitution.
Also, it is this judicial philosophy that supposedly has led President Bush to pledge to appoint judges like Scalia to the federal courts.
During the campaign of 2000, and in many subsequent speeches, Bush told voters that he would appoint "strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas." In Bush's view, Scalia is precisely the type of judge Bush adores, a "strict constructionist."
Imagine my surprise, then, when I read pages 23 and 24 of Scalia's own essay on judicial philosophy - an essay where Scalia makes it very clear why he, and no other person, ought to be a strict constructionist.
In "A Matter of Interpretation," Scalia writes that a textualist, as he considers himself, "should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."
Scalia continues, adding, "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be ..."
Interesting. Scalia, whose strict constructionist mold Bush would like to replicate in the federal courts, isn't a strict constructionist. Even worse, Scalia makes it very clear that no one ought to be one.
I know this critique of the president may seem petty, but it's not. The fact that the president of the United States, the person whose job it is to find the best possible appointees for the federal court system, does not know such a distinction in constitutional interpretation is not just a big deal - it's an enormous and embarrassing deal.
It's a fair rule that if you want to be president, you should be required to know those things that college students in a 300-level philosophy of law course are required to know.
Think of how frightening it would be if some random student in this course were to be granted the power to make all federal judicial appointments. Now, think of how scary it would be if that student hadn't done his homework.
This is essentially what we've got: a president, on this matter, who clearly did not do his homework.
My problems with Bush are more intellectual than they are policy-related, although I certainly disagree with more than my share of Bush policies. The most threatening aspect of George Bush as president is that he simply has no intellectual curiosity, and little desire to learn.
No matter their ideology, all voters should be dedicated to electing public officials who have at least a spark of intellectual curiosity and some sort of interest in exploring ideas.
And if that public official wants to be president, he might even want to consider reading an introductory text of constitutional thought.
And he should never, under any circumstance, nominate Harriet Miers.
Reach reporter at: macy.hanson@asuchoice.com
