Reading between the lines, I’m getting the sense that you’re not very fond of Scalia. But that’s not what this thread is about.
No, it’s about who belongs in the Supreme Court Hall of Fame. That inevitably requires discussing the contributions and significance of the careers of the nominees. If you think significant destroyers belong on the same level as significant builders, then please say so.
Incidentally, it only took her 13 years to catch on, but O’Connor did eventually realizethe Court should not have taken what became her signature case. We’re still waiting for her to apologize for her vote in it, or even explain it without apology.
It would be useless to discuss whether someone like Scalia is a “destroyer” or “builder” with someone like yourself. The question then is whether he is influential. I think it’s pretty clear that he is.
I don’t think that Roberts, Frankfurter, Rhenquist or Scalia are jurisprudentially all that noteworthy. Yes, they are all talented writers, but their overall impact on the US legal system for their work on the USSC isn’t really all that interesting. Roberts and Frankfurter are better remembered for their non-USSC achievements. Rhenquist is remembered for having a sense of humor about himself and his bizarre judicial robes and as a reliable Nixon stooge. Scalia has a drippingly amusing writing style, but he is nowhere near as amusing or dripping as H.L. Mencken. Scalia’s legal theories are really just so much “argle bargle.”
I’d put Hugo Black on the list because of his actual inflexible adherence to the actual text, consequences be damned, but legally he has has no lasting influence.
Byron White might get on the list for furthering the trend towards complex and impenetrable opinions.
Potter Stewart should be number on on the list for his determinative test for obscenity: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” Who, as an American, can’t understand that and chuckle.
Holmes should stay on the list because his support for various civil rights, including first amendment, was so full of shit that I’d have stayed in a crowded theater when someone yelled “fire” in hopes of never having to hear one of Holmes’ straw men again. On the other hand, he did support forced sterilization when there were three generations of mentally ill, coming up with the line “three generations of idiots is enough.”
There have been only 112 Justices in US history (yes, that’s true). A Hall of Fame worthy of the name would have to be pretty small.
So how about adding individuals who’ve played a key role in the Court’s history without having served on it? Like Sen. Roman Hruska, supporting Nixon’s failed nomination of the mediocre Harrold Carswell:
Likewise with someone who has difficulty addressing an uncomfortable topic without personalizing disagreement. :dubious:
I absolutely despise this incorrect opinion of Scalia (even if I’m not a big fan of textual originalism). For an example, I give you this thread (when even quotes Scalia’s dissent):
I don’t see his influence. Even when he’s right.
If he was influential, maybe we could have had a better decision in Campbell v. State Farm.