Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.
I don't think you could objectively say any of that.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I think the first two clauses of catastrophe's second sentence are as close to objectively true as you can get in this wacky, argle-bargle world. Of course, the last clause should be disregarded because anticipating future circumstances was very much part of the circumstances under which the Constitution was written. After all, it was a constitution they were framing.
Whether Scalia should be admonished for adhering to the type of ideologies he accused other judges of adhering to is a question of semantics that hinges on whether you consider Originalism to be an ideology. I would consider it more of a schema or analytical framework, but the modern definition of ideology is sufficiently broad to encompass it if one were so motivated. However, in 1791, "ideology" had a much more specific meaning and referred to the scientific study of the origins and nature of ideas. BOOM. Dismissed.
If those things were objectively true, no one could disagree with them - in the same way that no one could disagree that 2+2=4. In contrast, there is plenty of room for disagreement on both the exact role of the Supreme Court and to what extent interpreting entails considering circumstances.
If you advocate for any of the many possible definitions of these things, it seems to me that you're embracing an ideology that isn't necessarily shared by everyone else.
Absolute precision in law or language is not attainable. Consequently, civilized people tend to accept as a practical matter that truth and falsehood need to be employed as approximations. To argue over what is truly objective leads to absurdities and doesn't really advance the understanding of anyone involved in discussing a controversy. In fact, it just obfuscates the issue. As the poet Dylan said, there are no truths outside the gates of Eden. Or as Pontius Pilate once opined: Quid est veritas? We aren't dealing with a topic that can be analyzed with the precision of mathematical propositions. While I'm sure you could advance an argument that the framers did not intend the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, you would certainly have to rely on the same type of arguments that you criticize Scalia for using. In any event, the great weight of authority and history since Marbury v. Madison certainly demonstrates that interpreting the Constitution IS a role of the Supreme Court. Even if you want to argue that it ought not be, that is a different question than what is.
As a practical matter, "interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written." (Sic). I can't fathom anything controversial about that assertion. Notwithstanding its want of arithmetic proof, it is true per se. But, if you'd like to take a crack at it, I'd love to read your answer.
