Concerning the column by Ruben Navarrette Jr. (Feb. 19) criticizing the career of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Navarrette said it’s not like him to “speak ill of the dead.” He then wrote an entire piece doing just that.
Mr. Navarrette criticized Justice Scalia’s position on immigration, describing his views as “provincial” and “narrow.” He claimed that Mr. Scalia was impervious to the toils of hard-working Mexican Americans who were discriminated against in the 1930s and 1940s. Mr. Navarrette stated Mr. Scalia’s decisions were influenced by “conservative dogma.” Aren’t we all influenced by our core beliefs? What a revelation.
It’s pretty clear which side of the political fence Mr. Navarrette is on. And isn’t every justice on that court guilty of the same? I haven’t followed the Supreme Court for 30 years, as Mr. Navarrette claims he has, but I do know that Justice Scalia, an American icon, was well respected by both sides of the political continuum.
Mr. Navarrette shouldn’t speak ill of the dead. Especially, if it’s non-constructive political rhetoric to champion his cause. He should learn humility and give credit where credit is due.
Martin R. Davila, Sanger