4 ms·

> Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint He believed in judicial restraint when it came to interfering with conservative political causes; but w

> Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint He believed in judicial restraint when it came to interfering with conservative political causes; but when it came to furthering those causes, he was an activist. The court should not protect LGBT Americans due to "judicial restraint". But when it comes to a healthcare law passed by Congress and signed by the President, the court should overturn it. I could predict Scalia's rulings reliably by knowing only the politics of the case, not the law or the facts.

nickff 11y ago
This is plainly untrue; Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights, and often decided cases which went against his personal morality. He was often quoted saying that the side he liked got no preferential consideration when it came to deciding a case, and if you look at the way he wrote his opinions, you will see this is true. He would often decide in favor of people who he personally disliked and believed to be guilty of horrible things because their arguments were correct.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights That's not my impression and I quickly found the following, but I can't say the examples are representative of the overall trend or if the analyses are accurate (and I can't say the same of your examples). However, they are hard to reconcile with your claim: 1) Scalia is known for taking a hard stance against criminal defendants, and has long advocated striking down Miranda v. Arizona and upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty http://scarinciattorney.com/supreme-court-justices/antonin-scalia/ http://scarinciattorney.com/supreme-court-justices/antonin-s... 2) Defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to a competent lawyer's advice when deciding whether to accept a plea bargain, the Supreme Court ruled ... The ruling drew a sharply worded dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, ... He angrily called the court's rulings a "judicially invented right to effective plea bargaining." The article notes, 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/21/nation/la-na-court-plea-20120322 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/21/nation/la-na-court-p... 3) Ring v Arizona: holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury [i.e., not merely a judge] to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Scalia dissented: He voted to deny defendants the right to a jury for those purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_v_Arizona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_v_Arizona 4) Lawrence v Texas: The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. - in 2003! Scalia dissented, which if successful (and IIUC) would have sent defendant Lawrence to prison for having sex. Again, in 2003! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ---- If the above is correct and I understand correctly: He opposed Miranda, the minimal requirement to inform defendants of their rights; opposed the right to an attorney for plea bargains, from which result >94% of criminal convictions; opposed the right to a jury for a essential aspect of death sentences; and voted to allow the state to imprison a defendant for having consensual sex with an adult. I'm sure there are some grey areas, but I have a hard time seeing him as a ally of criminal defendants.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated. If you believe you should have a right you don't have, or that you should or shouldn't be sent to jail for a particular activity, the right people to contact and hold accountable are your representatives in the appropriate legislative body. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, even if they personally do not agree with the most accurate interpretation. Changing law or creating new law is the province of the legislature.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated. I agree that's the ideal but we are talking about what happens in the real world, where clearly many judges' political and ideological views have significant influence. If not, why would the GOP care if Obama chooses the next Justice? Why is Scalia's passing considered a blow to partisan Republicans and ideological conservatives? A prominent attorney once said to me: Judges put on their pants one leg at a time, just like everybody else. The point of my original comment (several levels up) and the person who responded is that Scalia indeed used his seat to advocate his beliefs.

nickff 11y ago

This is plainly untrue; Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights, and often decided cases which went against his personal morality. He was often quoted saying that the side he liked got no preferential consideration when it came to deciding a case, and if you look at the way he wrote his opinions, you will see this is true. He would often decide in favor of people who he personally disliked and believed to be guilty of horrible things because their arguments were correct.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines

hackuser 11y ago
> Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights That's not my impression and I quickly found the following, but I can't say the examples are representative of the overall trend or if the analyses are accurate (and I can't say the same of your examples). However, they are hard to reconcile with your claim: 1) Scalia is known for taking a hard stance against criminal defendants, and has long advocated striking down Miranda v. Arizona and upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty http://scarinciattorney.com/supreme-court-justices/antonin-scalia/ http://scarinciattorney.com/supreme-court-justices/antonin-s... 2) Defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to a competent lawyer's advice when deciding whether to accept a plea bargain, the Supreme Court ruled ... The ruling drew a sharply worded dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, ... He angrily called the court's rulings a "judicially invented right to effective plea bargaining." The article notes, 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/21/nation/la-na-court-plea-20120322 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/21/nation/la-na-court-p... 3) Ring v Arizona: holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury [i.e., not merely a judge] to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Scalia dissented: He voted to deny defendants the right to a jury for those purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_v_Arizona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_v_Arizona 4) Lawrence v Texas: The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. - in 2003! Scalia dissented, which if successful (and IIUC) would have sent defendant Lawrence to prison for having sex. Again, in 2003! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ---- If the above is correct and I understand correctly: He opposed Miranda, the minimal requirement to inform defendants of their rights; opposed the right to an attorney for plea bargains, from which result >94% of criminal convictions; opposed the right to a jury for a essential aspect of death sentences; and voted to allow the state to imprison a defendant for having consensual sex with an adult. I'm sure there are some grey areas, but I have a hard time seeing him as a ally of criminal defendants.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated. If you believe you should have a right you don't have, or that you should or shouldn't be sent to jail for a particular activity, the right people to contact and hold accountable are your representatives in the appropriate legislative body. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, even if they personally do not agree with the most accurate interpretation. Changing law or creating new law is the province of the legislature.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated. I agree that's the ideal but we are talking about what happens in the real world, where clearly many judges' political and ideological views have significant influence. If not, why would the GOP care if Obama chooses the next Justice? Why is Scalia's passing considered a blow to partisan Republicans and ideological conservatives? A prominent attorney once said to me: Judges put on their pants one leg at a time, just like everybody else. The point of my original comment (several levels up) and the person who responded is that Scalia indeed used his seat to advocate his beliefs.