February 20, 2007
HE CARES ABOUT HIS OWN WORDS MORE THAN OUR LAWS:
Supreme Court's new tilt could put Scalia on a roll: The outspoken justice is poised to lead a new conservative majority (David G. Savage, February 20, 2007, LA Times)
It has been two decades in the making, but this is the year Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most outspoken dissenter, could emerge as a leader of a new conservative majority.Between now and late June, the court is set to hand down decisions in four areas of law -- race, religion, abortion regulation and campaign finance -- where Scalia's views may now represent the majority.
In each of those areas, the retirement of centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her replacement with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. figure to tip the court to the right. That would give the 70-year-old Scalia the chance to play a part that has largely eluded him: speaking for the court in major rulings.
Scalia does not see shades of gray in most legal disputes; instead, he favors clear rules and broad decisions.
Nothing in Justice Scalia's career suggests that it would make sense for the Chief to assign him opinions that matter, given that he generally can't even get Clarence Thomas to sign on to them. To influence the Court you need to be willing to subsume self to build consensus. That's why William Brennan, though often wrong as to law, may have been the greatest justice ever. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 20, 2007 8:56 AM
Justice Scalia gave a lecture at my law school in Cincinnati when I was a 3L. I spent a fair bit of time watching him at the post-lecture wine & cheese party. Several of the 2L law review writers who'd been given assignments to write on cases where Justice Scalia had written an opinion came up to talk to him, and I was very impressed by how polite and classy the Justice was with them. He debated with a couple of them, but respectfully and on the level of ideas. After about five or ten minutes of watching him, it was impossible not to realize two things:
1. Justice Scalia firmly believed he was the smartest person in the room. Not "better" than everyone else, not egomaniacal, just smarter.
2. He was probably right.
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 20, 2007 9:59 AMinstead, [Scalia] favors clear rules and broad decisions
Well, the latter puts him at odds with the Chief Justice, who seems to prefer narrow, less far-reaching decisions (and consensus).
Posted by: kevin whited at February 20, 2007 10:52 AMNot being wrong on the law seems like the very thing needed in Supreme Justices. Who cares if he's a team player or great in conflict resolution?
Posted by: erp at February 20, 2007 11:44 AMYou can prove how smart you are or win cases.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2007 12:40 PMThe word "could" in the headline tells you that the article is just another space-filler.
In today's reality check, we have 5 new S.Ct. opinions, none written by Scalia. Ginsberg, on the other hand, wrote 2 of the opinions.
Scalia did write a dissent.
Posted by: curt at February 20, 2007 1:47 PMHe can prove how smart he is and win cases. The phrase, Ginsberg wrote two of them (opinions) does not make my heart sing.
Posted by: erp at February 20, 2007 2:00 PMoj, I'm really not following this, so to be serious, how can you say that " ... Brennan, though often wrong as to law, may have been the greatest justice ever."
Do you think winning is more important than following the law?
Of course. The law is whatever five of them say it is, right or wrong.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2007 10:24 PMTherein lies the problem.
Posted by: erp at February 21, 2007 8:24 AM