7 ms·

I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, edu

I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I also found when reading transcripts of oral arguments that Scalia was really terrifically funny pretty often. Once, I was doing some computer repair work for an attorney who was interviewing Scalia extensively for a book about Supreme Court oral arguments. It was late in the day, and all the other staff were gone. The phone rang, and the attorney asked me if I would answer it since I was close, and tell whoever it was that he was busy. I picked it up and the voice on the other end said, "let me speak to x." I said he wasn't in. The voice says, "I know he's in. Let me speak to him please." I tried to deflect again, and he finally says, "This is Justice Scalia. I guarantee you your boss wants to talk to me." Without thinking I piped up and said, "Oh, Justice Scalia! You won't believe who just walked in the door! Just a second." Apparently Scalia thought that was hilarious and told the guy to pay me extra for popping off to a Supreme Court justice like that. Edit: as a quick sidenote, I'd encourage everyone to actually read the oral arguments and the full opinions for important cases as they come up. The media is absolutely terrible about over simplifying or just straight up not getting the issues correct. You will find that there is a hell of a lot of thought that goes into opinions, and there is much less predetermined ideology than the way these things often get painted.

sandworm101 11y ago
>>> I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of history. As a man, he issued a steady stream of insults against all sorts of people. Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear". And he regularly talked down to anyone he though not ivy enough to share the room. That sort of disrespect isn't forgotten. Nobody should ever take joy in the death of another, but I will not miss his voice on the court.
- ErikVandeWater 11y ago
  I won't comment as to Scalia's version of history, but I will provide more context for the "sow's ear" comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0 This comment referred specifically to getting a clerkship, and he also admits one of his favorite clerks went to Ohio State. In general it seems, he had a lot of bark, but no real malice, otherwise why would he be good friends with other justices, including of all people Breyer and Ginsburg?
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    >>but no real malice Watch his many interviews re torture. The guy was no humanitarian.
- 17wallpapers 11y ago
  Did you deliberately reverse the quote?
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    No. I heard it in person during my first year of law school, which would have been long before 2009. The guy talked constantly, which isn't surprising given the job. Not every word appeared in NYT articles shortly thereafter.
    - 17wallpapers 11y ago
      Oh, I see. I thought I was missing something. That was lame of him.
- jbapple 11y ago
  > Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear". According to the NYT source, he actually said, "you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse", referring to the Harvard crowd as silk purses but not to non-Harvard lawyers as sow's ears. He seems to be referring to his disdain for the quality of the education at the most selective law schools while complementing their qualifications of their students.
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
> You will find that there is a hell of a lot of thought that goes into opinions, and there is much less predetermined ideology than the way these things often get painted. Yeah, retconning to twist everything that seeks to disturb one's bigoted and repressive worldview does take an extraordinary amount of thought, credit where it is due. I encourage everyone to not just read the opinions, but to be vigilant of this when doing so. The true crime of this is that it leads reasonable people like yourself to the belief that his deplorable behavior is merely a case of "reasonable people can disagree intelligently". Make no mistake, the outcome is predetermined based on his ideology. Reading individual opinions in isolation may tempt you to believe otherwise, but consulting his record over the long term will make it pretty clear.
- KMag 11y ago
  > I encourage everyone to not just read the opinions, but to be vigilante of this when doing so. Vigilantism, particularly against judges and justices for written opinions, is not the way to deal with laws and interpretations you find unjust. We must not fight the unjust with injustice.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I think it was meant "vigilant" in the Latin sense, ie.: watchful, attentive. Otherwise, the statement ("vigilant of") doesn't seem to make much sense.
    - lawnchair_larry 11y ago
      Oops, fixed. I'm not sure if that was a typo or a freudian slip. Kidding. ...kind of.
    - KMag 11y ago
      Ahh, I see. I live in a non-English speaking country, and I'm very used to correspondence where the author has copy-pasted a correctly spelled word from a dictionary, but has used very non-standard grammar in constructing the sentence. I guess that's why I read it as a grammatical mistake rather than a spelling mistake.
fpgeek 11y ago
I used to feel like that - that Justice Scalia was an thoughtful, intellectually honest justice that I profoundly disagreed with simply because I found his foundational principles alien and wrong. Then came Eldred v. Ashcroft. Larry Lessig, argued the case before the Supreme Court. In his retrospective on the case [1], Lessig describes how he built his argument on the Lopez/Morrison line of decisions which said that Congress's enumerated powers had to be interpeted so that they are structurally limited. In Lopez/Morrison, Scalia agreed with the argument that Congress can't regulate whatever they want simply by declaring it to be related to interstate commerce. Lessig's argument in Eldred was that a similar structural limit should apply to the copyright power: Congress shouldn't be able to establish effectively unlimited copyright "on the installment plan". I want to be clear what I am claiming here. I'm not saying Scalia was intellectually dishonest because Lessig lost. I'm claiming it because (as described in the retrospective) the Court didn't even address his core argument. Even if Ginsburg didn't want to include it in her majority opinion (perhaps because she didn't agree with the Lopez/Morrison decisions), Scalia could have explained why Eldred was different in a concurrence, but he didn't. That's where I see the intellectual dishonesty. [1] http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_le...
- ianamartin 11y ago
  This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intellectually honest all the time. No one is. But I think was a lot more of those things than he often got credit for. Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people. And as such, they have the right to try to get those opinions represented. Scalia's attitude towards torture was repulsive in my opinion. But he represents the attitudes of a very large number of real people. It's not like he's some kind of singular monster or something. As for saying crass things, giving people shit when maybe he shouldn't have, well, we've all done that too. I figure if there's one day you can cut a guy a little slack, it's the day he dies. Sheesh, if you can't find one tiny little positive thing to say about the man, I suggest that you aren't even trying. It's not like the man was pure evil. I further suggest that you say nothing at all if you honestly can't think of anything good about him. The vitriol in much of this thread is utterly tasteless and shameful.
rdancer 11y ago
> there is much less predetermined ideology The outcomes are pre-determined. Then they have to work backwards to justify them. It is extremely obvious when you read e.g. the Dred Scott or Korematsu decisions that were decided a long time ago, but it is still very obvious when you read recent decisions like Obergefell or Citizens United.
lotharbot 11y ago
Many of the most important people in my life have been those I profoundly disagree with on major issues, but who are able to articulate their positions honestly and clearly, and who are able to address criticisms and alternative opinions well. It's not always enjoyable to face strong and well-argued criticism, but it's what helps me make my own ideas stronger. Scalia was one of those who, whether I agreed or disagreed, I always learned from when I read his arguments.
ck2 11y ago
What did you think of him hunting and killing moose with Vice President Cheney days before he voted on a case suing him? You are allowed not to respect him even if you don't think he was an idiot. There are plenty of evil non-idiots.

sandworm101 11y ago

>>> I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of history. As a man, he issued a steady stream of insults against all sorts of people. Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear". And he regularly talked down to anyone he though not ivy enough to share the room. That sort of disrespect isn't forgotten. Nobody should ever take joy in the death of another, but I will not miss his voice on the court.

ErikVandeWater 11y ago
I won't comment as to Scalia's version of history, but I will provide more context for the "sow's ear" comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0 This comment referred specifically to getting a clerkship, and he also admits one of his favorite clerks went to Ohio State. In general it seems, he had a lot of bark, but no real malice, otherwise why would he be good friends with other justices, including of all people Breyer and Ginsburg?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >>but no real malice Watch his many interviews re torture. The guy was no humanitarian.
17wallpapers 11y ago
Did you deliberately reverse the quote?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  No. I heard it in person during my first year of law school, which would have been long before 2009. The guy talked constantly, which isn't surprising given the job. Not every word appeared in NYT articles shortly thereafter.
  - 17wallpapers 11y ago
    Oh, I see. I thought I was missing something. That was lame of him.
jbapple 11y ago
> Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear". According to the NYT source, he actually said, "you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse", referring to the Harvard crowd as silk purses but not to non-Harvard lawyers as sow's ears. He seems to be referring to his disdain for the quality of the education at the most selective law schools while complementing their qualifications of their students.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago

> You will find that there is a hell of a lot of thought that goes into opinions, and there is much less predetermined ideology than the way these things often get painted. Yeah, retconning to twist everything that seeks to disturb one's bigoted and repressive worldview does take an extraordinary amount of thought, credit where it is due. I encourage everyone to not just read the opinions, but to be vigilant of this when doing so. The true crime of this is that it leads reasonable people like yourself to the belief that his deplorable behavior is merely a case of "reasonable people can disagree intelligently". Make no mistake, the outcome is predetermined based on his ideology. Reading individual opinions in isolation may tempt you to believe otherwise, but consulting his record over the long term will make it pretty clear.

KMag 11y ago
> I encourage everyone to not just read the opinions, but to be vigilante of this when doing so. Vigilantism, particularly against judges and justices for written opinions, is not the way to deal with laws and interpretations you find unjust. We must not fight the unjust with injustice.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I think it was meant "vigilant" in the Latin sense, ie.: watchful, attentive. Otherwise, the statement ("vigilant of") doesn't seem to make much sense.
  - lawnchair_larry 11y ago
    Oops, fixed. I'm not sure if that was a typo or a freudian slip. Kidding. ...kind of.
  - KMag 11y ago
    Ahh, I see. I live in a non-English speaking country, and I'm very used to correspondence where the author has copy-pasted a correctly spelled word from a dictionary, but has used very non-standard grammar in constructing the sentence. I guess that's why I read it as a grammatical mistake rather than a spelling mistake.

fpgeek 11y ago

I used to feel like that - that Justice Scalia was an thoughtful, intellectually honest justice that I profoundly disagreed with simply because I found his foundational principles alien and wrong. Then came Eldred v. Ashcroft. Larry Lessig, argued the case before the Supreme Court. In his retrospective on the case [1], Lessig describes how he built his argument on the Lopez/Morrison line of decisions which said that Congress's enumerated powers had to be interpeted so that they are structurally limited. In Lopez/Morrison, Scalia agreed with the argument that Congress can't regulate whatever they want simply by declaring it to be related to interstate commerce. Lessig's argument in Eldred was that a similar structural limit should apply to the copyright power: Congress shouldn't be able to establish effectively unlimited copyright "on the installment plan". I want to be clear what I am claiming here. I'm not saying Scalia was intellectually dishonest because Lessig lost. I'm claiming it because (as described in the retrospective) the Court didn't even address his core argument. Even if Ginsburg didn't want to include it in her majority opinion (perhaps because she didn't agree with the Lopez/Morrison decisions), Scalia could have explained why Eldred was different in a concurrence, but he didn't. That's where I see the intellectual dishonesty. [1] http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_le...

ianamartin 11y ago
This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intellectually honest all the time. No one is. But I think was a lot more of those things than he often got credit for. Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people. And as such, they have the right to try to get those opinions represented. Scalia's attitude towards torture was repulsive in my opinion. But he represents the attitudes of a very large number of real people. It's not like he's some kind of singular monster or something. As for saying crass things, giving people shit when maybe he shouldn't have, well, we've all done that too. I figure if there's one day you can cut a guy a little slack, it's the day he dies. Sheesh, if you can't find one tiny little positive thing to say about the man, I suggest that you aren't even trying. It's not like the man was pure evil. I further suggest that you say nothing at all if you honestly can't think of anything good about him. The vitriol in much of this thread is utterly tasteless and shameful.

rdancer 11y ago

> there is much less predetermined ideology The outcomes are pre-determined. Then they have to work backwards to justify them. It is extremely obvious when you read e.g. the Dred Scott or Korematsu decisions that were decided a long time ago, but it is still very obvious when you read recent decisions like Obergefell or Citizens United.

lotharbot 11y ago

Many of the most important people in my life have been those I profoundly disagree with on major issues, but who are able to articulate their positions honestly and clearly, and who are able to address criticisms and alternative opinions well. It's not always enjoyable to face strong and well-argued criticism, but it's what helps me make my own ideas stronger. Scalia was one of those who, whether I agreed or disagreed, I always learned from when I read his arguments.

ck2 11y ago

What did you think of him hunting and killing moose with Vice President Cheney days before he voted on a case suing him? You are allowed not to respect him even if you don't think he was an idiot. There are plenty of evil non-idiots.