The only two certainties in life are death and taxes (at least since the Supreme Court’s 1916 decision upholding the income tax). That has meant that throughout the history of the Supreme Court, with its constitutionally mandated lifetime appointments, presidents and justices have attempted to game both turbulent political winds and the vagaries of mortality by strategically filling seats held by old-timers with younger justices of similar ideological bents. “It’s legitimate if all of them do it,” says Tracey George, a professor of both law and political science at Vanderbilt.
Justice Scalia gave a long interview to New York magazine this week, sharing his thoughts on the devil, homosexuality, and "Seinfeld." But setting aside whether he's right about the soup nazi, the justice's legal reasoning is hopelessly incoherent, writes
Antonin Scalia, why do you hate America?
Antonin Scalia believes in the Devil, suspects some of his friends are homosexual, and thinks that ladies who use the "F-word" are sadly symptomatic of a coarsened culture. Those are just a couple of the more entertaining details from a brilliantly conducted interview with Scalia by Jennifer Senior of New York magazine.
Libertarianism has won over the Supreme Court conservatives
Libertarianism has won over the Supreme Court's conservatives.
In the September 13 issue of TNR, Richard Posner reviewed Reading Law, a new book by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner. Soon afterwards, TNR published an exchange between Garner and Posner about the review. Here, Posner responds to the latest critical response by Antonin Scalia: Reuters invited me to respond to a statement made by Justice Scalia in an interview of him by Stephen Adler on September 17. The statement comments on a purported statement of mine in a review in the New Republic of Reading Law by Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner.
Last month Richard A. Posner, a Chicago judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, reviewed Antonin Scalia’s new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Our review has apparently hit a nerve. To recap: Posner accused the staunchly conservative justice of taking a hypocritical and “disingenuous” stance on his passive interpretation of law.
BRYAN A. GARNER:Hardly was I surprised that Judge Richard A. Posner did not warmly embrace Reading Law, the book on textualism I coauthored with Justice Antonin Scalia.