Scalia takes flak over Arizona dissent

, The National Law Journal

   | 9 Comments

Advocates and commentators usually shrug off Scalia's sometimes barbed comments from the bench, as well as his stinging dissents. But during this term, Scalia's behavior has come in for less forgiving scrutiny.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • sfpaperboy

    Let's face it...Justice Scalia is a douche bag! There should be mandatory retirement age along with a better way to unseat corrupt Justices!

  • cjklepper

    If he's to be perceived as "not caring", he needs to get off the bench. Justices shouldn't be serving long-termed, especially if they don't care of issues brought before them.

  • Ratkellar

    Civility has disappeared from political and public discourse. It is not less obnoxious for the liberal justices to whiine about "suffering." Hard cases still make bad law. I agree with his Arizona statement -- congress has passed a law on the books, so it should be acceptable and encouraged for states to enforce the federal law (even if the current administration does not). If Arizona's law contradicts federal law, that would be unacceptable. While the Feds can allocate its own enforcement resources. Of course, being a document-ish attorney, I think oral arguments are mostly legal theater anyway -- written briefs carry the argument.

  • Hank H

    PictouGene: The Constitution was lawfully amended by the 13th Amendment, to outlaw slavery. Scalia is not against amending the Constitution, so long as it is done lawfully, in accord with the plain language of the Constitution (2/3 majority of House and Senate, and 3/4 majority of states). He doesn't think that usurpation of this power by the courts is proper. We live in a republic, not an aristocracy.

  • Jeff Spangler

    Every bench needs a Rush to gush now and then.

  • Peter in SD

    In law school (a decade and a half ago) I used to think Scalia's arguments pithy with a bit of wit. As time went on I have found them to be more sarcastic and political with little pithyness. It's a shame; he was fun to hear and read.

  • PictouGene

    Scalia claims to be an "Originialist", which apparently means that he, and he alone, knows the minds of the founding Fathers. But there were many founding Fathers, holding many diverse opinions.He selects whichever Founder's opinion he want to present , to support his mis-understanding of the Constitution. For example, if he were really serious about being an Originialist, He'd advocate a return to slavery, which was in the original Constitution.

  • radicaltruth

    Of course liberals will call for his resignation and chastise him. Ginsburg's opinions are sometimes harshly written, but her personality by nature is more meek. The author and critics need to review history and examine the demeanor of past justices, for it seems their politics are getting in the way of clear thinking.

  • radicaltruth

    Of course liberals will call for his resignation and chastise him. Ginsburg's opinions are sometimes harshly written, but her personality by nature is more meek. The author and critics need to review history and examine the demeanor of past justices, for it seems their politics are getting in the way of clear thinking.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202561177541

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.