Changes

[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right]]

[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right]]

'''Antonin "Nino" Scalia''' (b. 1936) joined the U.S. [[Supreme Court]] as an Associate Justice in 1986, and quickly became its most outspoken [[conservative]] jurist.  He filled a vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] and nomination of Associate Justice [[William Rehnquist]] to become Chief Justice.  President [[Ronald Reagan]] nominated Scalia at the same time that he nominated Rehnquist for Chief Justice, and Democrats in the U.S. Senate focused all their opposition on the Rehnquist nomination.  Scalia was confirmed by unanimous vote, while Rehnquist was confirmed over substantial opposition.

'''Antonin "Nino" Scalia''' (b. 1936) joined the U.S. [[Supreme Court]] as an Associate Justice in 1986, and quickly became its most outspoken [[conservative]] jurist.  He filled a vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] and nomination of Associate Justice [[William Rehnquist]] to become Chief Justice.  President [[Ronald Reagan]] nominated Scalia at the same time that he nominated Rehnquist for Chief Justice, and most opposition in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] focused all their opposition on the Rehnquist nomination.  Scalia was confirmed by unanimous vote, while Rehnquist was confirmed over substantial opposition.

Justice Scalia is easily the most outspoken member of the Court, and has been for two decades.  He once quipped to the media, "Ah yes, esteemed jurist by day, man about town by night."<ref>http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/</ref>  Sometimes Scalia's public commentary causes problems for himself, as when ''pro se'' litigant Dr. Michael Newdow successfully filed a motion that led to Justice Scalia recusing himself from Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.<ref>supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/03-7.recuse.pdf </ref>

Justice Scalia is considered the most outspoken member of the Court; he once quipped to the media, "Ah yes, esteemed jurist by day, man about town by night."<ref>http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/</ref>  Sometimes Scalia's public commentary causes problems for himself, as when ''pro se'' litigant Dr. Michael Newdow successfully filed a motion that led to Justice Scalia recusing himself from Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.<ref>supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/03-7.recuse.pdf </ref>

== [[Textualism]] ==

== Textualism ==

Justice Scalia embraces a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "original meaning" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes.  He opposes speculation about the "intent" of the drafters or supporters of language that the Court must interpret. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasizes the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>

Justice Scalia embraces a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "original meaning" in interpreting the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] and federal [[statute]]s.  He opposes speculation about the intent of the drafters and the view that the Court must interpret the language figuratively. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasizes the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>

Many of Scalia's opinions display an attention to the need for the Court to be predictable to lawmakers.  His administrative opinions express a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines.  His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often point out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end.

Many of Scalia's opinions reflect a view that the Court needs to be predictable to lawmakers.  His administrative opinions express a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines.  His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often point out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end.

== Opinions ==

== Opinions ==

Justice Scalia is best known for his dissents, when his colorful and forceful style highlights weaknesses in his colleagues decisions.  He lambasts the notion of an "evolving" Constitution, which other justices have used to justify decisions not grounded in the text of the Constitution (see [[Responsive interpretation]] for discussion of different legal theories).  For example, when the Court held that the Constitution prohibits imposing the death penalty for any crime committed by someone under 18 years of age, Scalia was scathing in dissent:<ref>''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551, 607-08 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted. emphasis added)</ref>

Justice Scalia is best known for his dissents, in which his colorful and forceful style highlights weaknesses in his colleagues' decisions.  He staunchly opposes the notion of an "evolving" Constitution, which other justices have used to justify decisions not grounded in the text of the Constitution (see [[Responsive interpretation]] for discussion of different legal theories).  For example, when the Court held that the Constitution prohibits imposing the death penalty for any crime committed by someone under 18 years of age, Scalia was scathing in dissent:<ref>''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551, 607-08 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted. emphasis added)</ref>

:In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." '''Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.''' The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," of our national society.

:In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." '''Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.''' The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," of our national society.