Search the Lounge


« Call for Nominations: AALS Federal Courts Section | Main | Hiring Announcement: Tulane University Law School (Chair: Environmental Law) »

August 04, 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


No doubt that Scalia contributed to the general hyperbolic depiction of Americans he did not like. Reagan did the same thing when as he set some models for diatribes from the right.
But thanks for this accurate take down of Scalia.


For all of you who watch MSNBC, or CNN, or read some of the posts here in the FL written by blatantly partisan attackers, apply the Lubet standard, and ask yourself, have you NO self awareness?

Adam Lamparello

Justice Scalia is among the most brilliant and influential legal thinkers (and writers) in the Court's recent history. First, unlike many 'living constitutionalists,' Scalia didn't manipulate the Constitution's text (see, e.g., 'penumbras' and 'substantive due process') to impose his policy predilections. His opinions in Texas v. Johnson and Employment Division v. Smith, along with several opinions interpreting the Fourth Amendment and Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, reflect this fact. Second, his writing was powerful, engaging, and persuasive; legal writing students should read many of his opinions to see what it means to be an extraordianry legal writer. Third, Scalia had a clear constitutional vision and interpretive philosophy that, whether you agreed with it or not, led to clarity and consistrency in his jurisprudence (something you couldn't expect from, for example, Justice Kennedy).

Perhaps these are among the many reasons that Justice Ginsburg considered Scalia her best friend and most formidable adversary on the Court.

I'm not saying that Scalia was perfect. I disagreed strongly with some of his opinions. But his intellect and influence (along with his collegiality) cannot be understated. And as far as calling someone a weirdo, I can think of judges -- and professors -- who have done far worse.



Well said. The folks who adhere to their "party line" use Scalia's name as a weapon, but, the truth is that nearly all have come over to his favored method of interpretation. He was a principled defender of the right of free speech and many other values that wouldn't be associated with the monster that they depict. Above all, he realized that nine lawyers in robes aren't the government of the United States and should avoid making policy, as opposed to resolving disputes according to law.

Today, the president stated that knowingly defying a decision of the Supreme Court is justified, if he can find a few folks in this big country to agree it is "worth a try."

That's his standard.

Crickets. Where is Steve Lubet's outrage here?

Anonymous Bosch

Speaking of institutions only being able to function if they have public's respect, this link below is to the most important piece to come out of the United States this year.

As noted above by another poster, Steve, your preferred SCOTUS members consistently, predictably, and shamelessly lie whilst feigning to engage in constitutional interpretation. To modify one famous scholar's remarks to Congress on the matter: if the right-wingers on the bench adopted a form of living constitutionalism (so that they too could advance their policy preferences of the moment), you'd be up in arms.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad