Kagan and Scalia have taken hunting trips together. Not exactly the kind of sport that two people who dislike each other would do together. It’s especially not something two people who hate each other would do. Contrary to some internet opinions, the Supremes do get along on a personal basis.
*Kagan and Scalia have gone hunting together on several occasions and she explained to Axelrod that it all began with her confirmation hearings. Back in 2010, as part of the nomination process, she visited many Senate offices and the topic that came up the most, she said, was the Second Amendment. Senators on both side of the aisle asked her if she had ever been hunting. She confessed she was a “Jewish girl who grew up in New York City” and knew close to nothing about the sport.
…She told one senator that if she were lucky enough to be confirmed she would ask Scalia to teach her how to hunt.
…The two justices started out with clay pigeons, then deer (she bagged one) antelope (no such luck) and just recently ducks.*
It is not convenient, the Republican party goals grew out of the same Burkean tradition as the constitution. Limited government and enumerated power. If people want to change the constitution they should do so by democratic means and not by pretense.
We agree on something. I could have lived with a type of opinion that you propose even if I disagreed with it. The problem with the actual opinion that we got is that it completely ignored the tiers of scrutiny and leaves an open question of whether there are such tiers going forward.
Further, any type of relationship I want to have with another person, even a business relationship, I could call it a “marriage” and use this opinion for justification of the state treating it that way.
But, the state would argue, that’s not a marriage because the definition of marriage was never meant to include your business contract! But history is no longer the test.
I’m not sure if this case will actually set precedent or simply be recognized as a one-off results oriented opinion that it was, but if I can dream of something that really affects me personally, I now have a prima facie case in court that it should be a constitutional right.
There was (IMO) a good op ed in today’s Chicago Trib by Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UCI law school. I think he makes a decent case that Scalia’s language is unfortunate because of the influence it might have on the tone of legal argument, especially among young lawyers. As the writer notes, I greatly suspect that Scalia would criticize any attorney who used a similar tone in his/her briefs or oral argument.
The dean’s experiences are essentially anecdotal, but he notes that his law students are increasingly relying upon derision and ad hominem attacks. And he (correctly, I believe) characterizes certain of Scalia’s language as unnecessarily “nasty, sarcastic, and personal.”
While I would still greatly disagree w/ Scalia, I would respect him more if he exhibited what I consider appropriate demeanor.
BTW - over the last couple of weeks I have undergone 2 required CLE sessions on appropriate judicial demeanor - an area I continually try to improve upon. I suspect the Supremes are presumed to be beyond such efforts… :rolleyes:
So what is the issue with a SCJ using obsolete, 19th century slang? He wants people to notice-which is why he used a term that hasn’t been in common use since about 1890 or so. By the jim jams!
The issue is he’s spouting like a cranky old man, using terms terms that are meaningless in any legal sence, to cast aspersions at his fellow Justices. IMO, of course.
Not in common use but that doesn’t mean that Scalia hasn’t been using the term among his fellow Justices. And it’s not up to the PC word-police to decide that jiggery-pokery no longer means jiggery-pokery, or to decide which words a Supreme Court Justice may use.
AFAIK, before a SCOTUS ruling is issued, the Supremes have already had several closed door sessions to discuss the merits of the case. I doubt that Erwin Chemerinsky of the LA Times has access to those closed door sessions. And I doubt that the Supremes care what Chemerinsky’s opinion is of the words that they choose.
I would question whether that’s true. ISTM that his tone is the same as the other justices but he expresses himself in a more colorful way so that his lines attract more attention.
No, that’s nonsense. The other justices often say things like “the majority has made a mistake today,” or “the dissent fails to recognize that…” Scalia is far less civil in his prose, win or lose.
Erwin Chemerinsky is not “of the LA Times” (as you would know if you had actually opened the article). The thing about op-eds is that they are written by people who don’t work for the publication.
He’s the dean of the UC Irvine law school and pretty broadly agreed to be the nation’s foremost constitutional law scholar. His Constitutional Law is pretty much the default textbook for law school classes on the topic. He’s the second most widely cited law professor in the country. He’s also argued dozens of cases before SCOTUS. In short, the Supremes certainly care what he thinks.
I guess you don’t understand that this language was used in a dissent, and they wouldn’t have discussed this language at all as a group, as his use of it was directed at the perceived mental inadequacies of his fellow justices.
No, it’s not “colorful”. His comments are personal insults against other parties involved in the cases, in many cases the other justices. And they are also accusations of ethics violations as well. He often accuses them of stretching their interpretations of the law to and beyond the breaking point in order to justify the outcomes that they want, regardless of the merits of the cases.
I could have lived with a type of opinion that you propose even if I disagreed with it. The problem with the actual opinion that we got is that it completely ignored the tiers of scrutiny and leaves an open question of whether there are such tiers going forward.