Scalia’s opinions remind me of a lot of what I see in Dick Posner’s 7th Cir opinions. I’m not persuaded that they are the most appropriate or effective way of writing a decision. Whimsy is one thing. But IMO disrespect, namecalling, tantrums, etc. have limited place in published appellate court decisions. I think it inappropriate for a judge to write a disrespectful opinion when they would not tolerate anything close to such behavior by a litigant. Yes, judges and justices are real people with real emotions, but I think it behooves a responsible jurist to do their best to keep that out of their opinions.
I’ve heard often is that Scalia and Ginsburg are great friends. I find that hard to imagine. They must be able to put aside their philosophical differences and the language used in decisions in a manner I would find quite difficult.
I’m trying to decide whether I think Scalia’s language is “effective” - and if so, for whom? Will his use of insulting language motivate and grow the portion of citizens and representatives who agree with him? Or will it marginalize him, making it easier for folk of all stripes to not take him seriously? Or will it encourage those who disagree to step up their efforts? I just don’t see the long-term game. Whatever anyone thinks of him, he is not a stupid person. As such, I suppose therer is a specific reason that he chooses to express himself as he does. However, lacking such insight, he instead impresses me as a petulant child - albeit a petulant child witrh a HELLUVA lot of power!
I don’t disagree entirely, but he’s feeding a narrative that he’s old and out of touch by using words most of us have never heard before. And how do you explain “applesauce?”
I don’t think the amusement or disconcertion about “jiggery-pokery” is because people are unfamiliar with the word. It’s because it is overtly contemptuous of his colleagues. Scalia’s opinions routinely characterize other members of the court in personally contemptuous terms, suggesting that they as individuals are either being dishonest or that they are imbeciles. That is the most notable characteristic of a Scalia opinion.
I think him sprinkling his opinions with archaic or flowery language is because he wants to shine a light on himself; the media loves getting wrapped around the crazy words or phrases he uses, since they have no desire to unpack the legal thinking, so they make a huge deal out of the garbage he writes.
I agree that the contemptuous language is getting out of hand in SCOTUS; do any lawyers on the SD disagree and can point me to numerous other decisions or dissents that are full of potshots at the other justices’ thinking?
Your interpretation of how the Supremes feel about each other is both amusing, and your opinion. While the Supremes disagree on many legal issues, the majority of their opinions are unanimous. While many outsiders try to define the personal relationships between the Supremes, the Supremes themselves seem to get along, on a personal level, swimmingly.
As usual, it seems most posters are ignorantly commenting on Scalia’s jurisprudence and writing style from the basis of summaries produced by the usual left-leaning sources. Scalia’s opinions are every bit as rigorous, if not more so, than his fellow justices, and are much less boring to read. The purpose, in a metapolitical sense, is to make his opinions relatively more appealing than other justices, ensuring a broader audience (or maybe he’s just an authentic jokester).
This is a pretty good summary of the left’s critique of his writing style, basically.
I don’t explain it; I just eat it, because it’s delicious!
More seriously, I think “applesauce” is kind of like Colonel Potter’s old reliable “Horse Hockey!” A more polite way of saying “Bullshit.”
I think I would disagree with Acsenray’s contention that the amusement with “jiggery-pokery” is about the contemptuousness of it, rather than unfamiliarity with its meaning. That may be the case in some comments, but many of those I’ve seen, so far as I’m able to judge, strike me as thinking the term is complete made-up nonsense. It can be a bit difficult to tell, at times, but that’s my impression in at least some cases. See, for example, Jon Stewart’s bit claiming that we need to consult the “Old Man Dictionary” to find out what “jiggery-pokery” means.
Jon Stewart was making a joke. That’s what he does for a living. Whichever writer(s) for Stewart’s show wrote that sketch earned every dollar they’re paid to be funny.
Besides the video I linked in post #23?
I’ve read many opinions, and rants, from media outlets, bloggers, and pundits that the Supremes do not like, or even hate, each other, but those people offer little, or no, evidence to support their opinions. Very little is actually known about what occurs behind the closed door of the justice’s chamber.
I’ve never heard of two Supremes being involved in a food, or fist, fight. Most of their decisions are unanimous. The nine justices actually agree with each other most of the time. While the Court’s opinions, concurrences, and dissents may, at times, contain snarky or sharply pointed wording, that by itself, is not proof that the Supremes hate each other.
It ain’t personal, it’s just business. People CAN get along even if they disagree.
Equal protection is right there in the 14th Amendment. You could look it up. Srsly.
If you want an example of a right being made up out of thin air, Scalia’s finding a right to private gun ownership for self-defense in the “plain text” of the 2nd would fit much better.
And he has more credibility as a news source than Fox.
If you have not already done so, I encourage you to read Perfect Piggies by Sandra Boynton. I love that book way more than my children do, and I read it to them as often as they will tolerate it. “These little piggies go piggledy bop!” You can’t read that book without smiling.
Well, I did read one story about what goes on behind the Supremes’ closed doors. I don’t recall where I read this. It might have been in Readers’ Digest, with all the credibility thereupon attendant.
There was a case where an older lawyer was arguing before the court. He had a full set of false-teeth dentures. He was making his argument vigorously and forcefully. And then…
Right in the middle of his forceful argument, his teeth flew out of his mouth and landed, with a clatter, on the desk or lectern in front of him. Without losing so much as a beat or a breath in his argument, he snatched them up and stuck them back in his mouth, and continued his argument as if nothing of the sort had happened.
The justices, of course, remained stone faced throughout the entire argument, without cracking so much as a grin.
Until they were behind closed doors, of course. Then, one judge grinned and chuckled “His teeth flew out of his mouth!” Next thing, all nine of them were rolling on the floor laughing their Supreme asses off!
True story? Damfino. This was quite some years ago I read this.
Actually, the “jiggery-pokery” line came from his dissent on King v. Burwell which is Obamacare. So that’s either 6 justices, or you need to keep better track of which decisions have your nose out of joint.
