“I wouldn’t have hired Jeff Sutton,” Justice Scalia said. “For God’s sake, he went to Ohio State!"
“I wouldn’t have hired Jeff Sutton,” Justice Scalia said. “For God’s sake, he went to Ohio State!"
Antonin Scalia went to my HS, or rather I guess I went to his...good man! lol
Damn it -- now there's something I don't hate about Scalia. There'd better be only one. There can be only one.
Any judge who goes duck hunting with a defendant and says the two are above impropriety is just completely wrong.
...you know nothing about the rules of recusal at the Supreme Court.
Fill me in on how he could go duck hunting with Cheney at Dick Cheney's private reserve just before Cheney was to be the defendant in a case before the Supreme Court.
Republican response: Dollars.
...first off, Cheney wasn't a defendant before the Supreme Court. The case you're talking about is Cheney v. District Court. He was the appellant before the Supreme Court, meaning, he brought the appeal. He was the defendant in the federal District Court. Yes, there is a difference.
Second, Supreme Court justices make the decision whether to recuse themselves. They normally will do so when they own stock in a company before them, or when they took part in the decision below (for example, any case Justice Alito took part in at the 3rd Circuit before he was appointed). Scalia wrote a 21-page memorandum explaining why his decision not to recuse himself was supporting by precedent and legal authority. The rest of the court accepted his opinion and he took part.
Third, GO BLUE.
The idea is that Chaney was a named party, but was only acting in his official capacity and was not seeking any relief for himself personally. The relief sought was for the benefit of the government. If friendship warranted recusal under these circumstances, about 10 percent of cases involving the Federal Govt. would require judges to recuse themselves.
with Justice Scalia's mode of legal interpretation is that words in themselves don't mean anything - it is only through the active participation of the reader that any meaning can exist in a given group of words. for Scalila to say something "means what it says" is basically to say it means what he wants it to say.
Linguistic anthropology is a little more complicated than that. While understanding a group of words depends on the interpretation of the reader, a fair interpretation must also account for the writer's intentionality.
I think you meant the writer's intentionalisumitation, which is far more appropriate in that context.
unless you're using Scalia's strict constructionist, textual approach, under which we are not supposed to consider the writer's intent. which further underscores my original point that Scalia uses a limited and practically unworkable methodology.
....a majority of the Justices in our history were originalists.....I'd hardly say the philosophy was, or is, unworkable...
ahh the 1930s. those were the days...
wwII was gearing up. the country was in massive debt. the depression was under way. and polio was still rampant. how we miss those times.
even true? where in the text of the constitution does the supreme court's prerogative of "judicial review" even exist? in fact, it was a power more or less arrogated by the court via John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
Scalia's originalism is "unworkable" in the sense that any overly rigid schematic is unworkable - there are times where justice demands looking at alternative modes of decision-making, such as precedent, legislative intent and even foreign law. the weakness of such an approach is a lack of bright line rules - but if bright line rules and rigidly dogmatic systems are the only way to make decisions, we'd be better off removing the human element by a degree and writing a computer program to make all decisions.
...his philosophy isn't nearly as streamlined and hard-nosed as you say. It's rather simple. If it's prohibited by the Constitution (remember, the Constitution is written as a limitation upon government's powers), then you can't do it. But if the Constitution doesn't regulate it, then it's up to the legislature to decide, NOT judges.
Why is that rigid and ridiculous? Let me give you two examples: flag burning and medicinal marijuana. Scalia permits flag burning (it's protected by the First Amendment) and medicinal marijuana can be regulated (Necessary and Proper Clause).
The Constitution is the shortest one in the free world today and it's lasted the longest - I think we're doing a good job.
Foreign law = blah. Have you heard of the Exclusionary Rule? That if a cop violates the Constitution the evidence gained gets thrown out?
Well, we're the only country in the world that has the Exclusionary Rule. Should we give a "tip of the hat" to foreign law and get rid of it? If no, why not? The Exclusionary Rule isn't in the Constitution - it's admittedly prophylactic.
Last word - I trust 300 million Americans to vote in a Legislature to make policy decisions. That is how the Constitution was written. I trust 9 judges to determine whether the Legislature's rules are Constitutional - I don't trust them to make up the rules based on how they feel.
If he's lurking, Promote RichRod's pants are currently filled with shit, in brick form, reeking of rage.
God I was thinking the same thing, he would be ALL OVER this thread. Because he goes to law school. AT MICHIGAN. Michigan Law. School. Ann Arbor.
the exact opposite of scalia's approach
responding to Obes?
First, jg2112 is correct, and this interpretation is incorrect. Scalia's approach does in fact allow for intent, in fact, to support his opinions on the words of the constitution, he often uses other examples of the framer's writings, which shed further light on their intent.
Secondly, originalism, identified with the political right (it is not necessary to be a conservative to believe in it, some famous liberals followed it) strives in every case to determine the meaning and intent of the original words of the constitution as applied to today. Contextualism, which is a more left oriented approach to the law, argues that the the meanings of those words change over time, and that we have to "adapt" the constitutions words to today's cases.
If you don't strive to follow original meaning of the constitution's words, you then are basing decisions on what individual judges think the constitution should mean today. In other words, there is no constraint on judges other than what they think the law should mean. That's a disaster that originalism seeks to prevent.
attempting to divine the "framers' intent" is equally fraught with peril, in that they didn't share a cohesive, unified idea as to what the document they crafted actually meant. for example, consider separation of church and state under the 1st amendment. some founders, such as Jefferson and Madison, thought it meant a "wall of seperation" ought to exist between church and state. others thought it simply meant that the federal government couldn't declare an official state religion, but any state would be free to do if it desired. one could fairly argue that both views represent the "framers intent".
Too often people go crazy on this or any strong political issue. Anyway, not surprisingly, I disagree. While Jefferson did write that-later in life than when the constitution was written-I think the preponderance of evidence shows that the framers meant freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Just one example: it would have been inconceivable at that time for anyone to publicly or privately declare they were non-believers. Moreover, the existence of a prayer at the beginning of every congressional session, the history of settlement in America, and many others.
But what I most respect about originalism is my belief that it is the most democratic form of judicial philosophy. The impact of it's decisions usually is to have the greatest number of decisions possible lie with the states and Congress, not the judiciary. We would be far better off in this country if we allowed the states to decide most issues, because that means far less social strife and far more democracy. Example; gay marriage. I'm perfectly happy to live in a country where that is decided, as it is now, state by state. I wish abortion would be addressed in the same manner. And originalism says" it's not in the constitution, so you guys decide by voting." Liberal judicial philosophy says " the constitution is about freedom for all, which means that denying a human right is wrong, and gay people deserve to have the human right of marriage." Social strife and 30 years of crap then ensue.
It's still an indirect swipe at OSU, I guess, but he didn't "bash them". He was responding to a criticism that he takes only Ivy-League Graduates as his clerks. He admitted that was valid, but then remembered one exception - Jeff Sutton. So what you omitted was the qualifying "If I only took Ivy League Grads" before that sentence.
Because, like, he DID hire Jeff Sutton. Who went to Ohio State.
Quit being pretentious -- especially if you're wrong. Read the paragraph again. Scalia DID NOT hire the guy; Powell did.
And he did bash them. To paraphrase: "This clerk's performance was impressive, despite the fact he went to Ohio State."
the article also says that the Supreme Court only takes clerks from "elite" schools, listing Harvard and Yale as the two big feeder schools for half the clerks, and Columbia, Virginia, Chicago and Stanford providing the other half. So, it is possible that he would have made the same type of comment for any law school that was not one of those 6 feeder schools (including, apparently, UofM).
But, for the record, I still think that OSU is a Neanderthal institution and that Scalia is a terrible Justice.
According to Wikipedia, Scalia has hired only one Michigan clerk in 20 years on the bench -- tied with OSU. (Sadly, Scalia has hired three ND grads, probably because ND has a reputation for producing conservative lawyers.)
Thankfully, other justices continue to hire UM law grads, about one per year overall. That's much less than Harvard or Yale, but about on par with Virginia.
As a M Law alum, I defer to no school when it comes to elitism and snootiness.
I'm firing off a letter to the NYT and demanding that they immediately correct the article to include Michigan as an elite law school!
/no I'm not
Yale Law people are fucking insufferable.
....the article is stupid. Clarence Thomas hires clerks from "non-elite" schools (there is a religious one in Virginia I believe where he's hired a few).
Tell me why Scalia is a "terrible" Justice. If "terrible" = I don't like how he rules, you need to do better than that.
If you could have dinner with Scalia or Stephen Breyer, I'd love to hear why you'd want to eat dinner with Breyer. Pour it on.
id like to hear why you think hes a good justice...other than "im a republican,and so is he"
may be more interesting to have dinner with, but that does not make him a "good" justice
...but I can tell when someone is smart and believes in what he believes in. Scalia is clear, cogent and has a clear philosophy. Whether you agree or not, that's great. Scalia is a brilliant man - 4.0 in high school, 1st in his class at Georgetown, Magna Cum Laude at Harvard. He, as well as Souter, Stevens, Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, and Cardozo are some of the Justices I greatly admire. I could care less about their politics - I admire their writing and their expression. It would be good if the country could get over this stupid Republican v. Democrat thing - they're both just teams who play for the win and could care less what they believe in as long as it's popular. Judges, however, craft philosophies and styles and are enjoyable to learn about.
Scalia writes entertaining opinions (especially some of his dissents) and he's funny at arguments, but he still can be inconsistent and hypocritical at times, which is why I dislike some of what he writes. A lot of times "originalism" just means whatever he wants it to mean. Check out his opinion in Crawford v. Washington, he takes one arbitrary definition of "testimonial" to completely change Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.
Absolutely agree about his dissents. I've always enjoyed reading his. Well... as much as one can enjoy reading dissents. The sarcasm and wit that he uses in writing a dissent is an art form. That said, he does a good job when writing for the majority as well. His opinion in Heller was quite well written, despite the media portrayal. However, of all of the "modern" justices I enjoy reading Stevens' opinions the most.
"It would be good if the country could get over this stupid Republican v. Democrat thing - they're both just teams who play for the win and could care less what they believe in as long as it's popular."
but am still unconvinced that Scalia's strict constructionist approach is actually any different than ruling on cases based on how he feels. not to mention that Scalia's crabbed interpretation of judicial standing in environmental law cases wholly undermines the intent of congress to grant citizens the right to sue under certain environmental laws.
i agree that Scalia can be clear and cogent - at times. then again, at other times he can use tortuous logic, straining to fit decisions within the framework of his overarching philosophy. while its not good policy for judges to rule solely based on whatever whims they are following on a given day, i also think that they should consider a wider range of factors in reaching their decisions than the text of the constitution itself. after all, whether something is "prohibited by the constitution" is seldom as clear cut as Scalia's originalism would prefer. to list an obvious example, does the constitution grant a right for individuals to bear arms? the answer isn't at all clear, based on the text itself.
He could have said Jordan B. Hansell, a Michigan grad who clerked for him, but that might not have had the same effect.
Of the current and future clerks for SC justices (including the final four for Souter), Yale and Harvard lead with 23 and 18.
There's a second tier of Stanford (6) and Virginia (5). Then Georgetown has three, and Chicago, Columbia, GW and Michigan have two apiece.
The others with one 2009 or 2010 clerk are Creighton, George Mason, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Notre Dame, NYU, Pepperdine, Rutgers-Camden, Seton Hall, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
Historically, over 25 percent of clerks came from Harvard (441) and 16.5 percent was Yale. Then there's a big dropoff to a second tier of Chicago (7.19%), Columbia (6.04 %), Stanford (5.75%), Virginia (4.6%), and Michigan (3.97%).
Between 1-2 percent was Berkeley, Northwestern, NYU, Penn, Texas, Georgetown. Others over 10 clerks historically were BYU, UCLA, GW, Notre Dame and Duke.
Ohio State has had three.
So if you look at the stats, it seems Scalia is correct that the top schools are and have always been feeders for clerkships in SCOTUS. Yale and Harvard are going to provide about half, with another 25 percent taken from among the next level of law schools (which includes Michigan) and then the last quarter will be from decent law schools (or, as often in the 20th century, the justice's alma mater).
So I hear that this Denard kid is pretty fast.
Someone I know who graduated from UM Law a few years ago interviewed with Scalia and got an offer to be his clerk. She decided to work for Ginsburg instead.
So he wants Michigan grads, but he doesn't always get them.
In this context, it becomes clear that his recent comments ripping on Ohio State are simply a feeble ploy to attract UM law grads.
And for the record, Scalia is a total dick. When he came to Ann Arbor to speak, the first thing he did was yell at the law school's long-time photographer in front of a packed crowd. I could give a rat's ass about his stupid gimmicky legal philosophy and whether it's correct.
quite the opposite is true.
Originalism a/k/a/ "intentionalism" is quite predictable. And the furthest thing from "gimmicky."
I said I didn't care about whatever legal philosophy he supports. He treats other people like shit. He's a dick. I don't care what he thinks about anything, including Ohio State. Get it?
You happen to be wrong. Scalia has more friends on the court than any Justice. Ruth Bade Ginsburg, a liberal, and he are great friends. You don't get that by being a dick.
that postmodernism is destructive and has the intellectual value of rat feces.
This thread is stupid, as are most of the posters scrutinizing a Supreme Court Justice as if they are the epitome of wisdom and knowledge.
Did you know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg received an honorary degree from the University of Michigan (http://www.michigandaily.com/content/pinsky-speak-graduation) in 2001 right before the UM admissions policy case was coming before the court (http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/grutter/gru-ussc-op.html)? And she didn't recuse herself? And that fact was convieniently left out in most news reporting on the matter. Oh and when introduced at the graduation ceremony (I was there sitting in the stands in grad garb listening), she was lauded as a defender of "diversity in higher education". Huh.
So apparently, for constitutional revisionist jurists, it's OK for conflict of interest to just be glossed over when its a DEFENDANT PAYING A SITTING JURIST within 18 months of hearing a case.
Scalia writes some of the best researched and intellectually sound opinions consistant with a originalist interpretation of US constitutional law. You won't find him quoting non-ratified UN treaties or Scottish common law or "what I think is fair" as justifications for his decisions.
....is that Ginsburg and Scalia are incredibly close friends outside of the Court. Proof that ideology does not need to trump respect or other shared interests.
Ideology, no. Football rivalry, yes.
Then again, if you can explain why civility should be expected when we're arguing over the future of our nation and actual effects on peoples' lives; but be thrown out the window when a football team in maize and blue plays a (the) football team in (the) scarlet and (fake) silver, then you have won a no-expense opportunity to explain it to Misopogal.