Antonin Scalia

Who's Your Donor?
October 20, 2010

In a 1998 editorial that was otherwise skeptical of campaign finance reform, The Wall Street Journal wrote, “If there’s one thing all the players agree on it’s the need for better disclosure of contributions and a crackdown on violators.” And who, indeed, could object to the principle—more necessary than ever after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United paved the way for corporations to get more involved in funding elections—that voters should know who is paying for political ads? Well, it turns out a lot of people object—including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial writers circa 2010

It's Alive
June 22, 2010

In 1997, Justice Antonin Scalia released a slender volume setting forth his judicial vision. In addition to defending originalism, Scalia sought to disparage what he viewed as the then-dominant mode of interpreting the Constitution. “The ascendant school of constitutional interpretation affirms the existence of what is called The Living Constitution, a body of law that ... grows and changes from age to age, in order to meet the needs of a changing society,” Scalia wrote.

Blast at the Past
June 03, 2010

Washington—It should become the philosophical shot heard 'round the country.

Everyone’s Dean
April 19, 2010

Some years ago, I told my colleague Jack Goldsmith, when his role in revoking the notorious Yoo-Bybee torture memos became public, that the only thing worse than being demonized by the left is being lionized by the left. It works both ways, though. The media like to pin a one-word--or if they are more nuanced, one-phrase--epithet on public figures, as Homer would on his gods and heroes (grey-eyed Athena, wily Odysseus). They have decided to attach the term "conservative" (or for the more subtle: "relatively conservative") to solicitor general and former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan.

Roberts versus Roberts
March 02, 2010

Last month, the Supreme Court handed down its most polarizing decision since Bush v. Gore. The 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission called into question decades of federal campaign finance law and Supreme Court precedents by finding that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want on election campaigns, as long as they don’t consult the candidates.

The Accountable Presidency
February 01, 2010

Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush By John Yoo (Kaplan, 544 pp., $29.95) Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State By Garry Wills (Penguin, 288 pp., $27.95)   I. In December 2008, Chris Wallace asked Vice President Cheney, “If the president, during war, decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?” Cheney’s answer included a reference to a military authority that President Bush did not exercise.

The Quiet Revolution
February 01, 2010

Obama has reinvented the state in more ways than you can imagine.

The Constitution In Exile Appears
January 29, 2010

The most important aspect of the Supreme Court's invalidation of campaign finance laws may be that it signals a new step into judicial activism. Of course, the slogan of "judicial restraint" is the central promise of Republican judicial nominees, but it's fairly clear that this idea only applies when liberals hold the majority on the Court. Linda Greenhouse has a terrific piece today: Three years ago, after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Benched
October 01, 2009

The most-watched case of the Supreme Court's last term, which ended in June, invited the justices to hold unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The law required certain jurisdictions--largely in the Old South--to "pre-clear" any changes in their electoral systems with the Department of Justice. It was intended to prevent states with poor civil rights histories from changing their voting systems in ways that would keep blacks from voting.

Outcomes, Outcomes
September 01, 2009

The Constitution in 2020 Edited by Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel (Oxford University Press, 355 pp., $19.95) There is a genre, the "constitutional manifesto," that sits uneasily between the scholarly or theoretical analysis of constitutional law and the buzzwords of day-to-day constitutional politics. The latter category may be nicely illustrated by the competing slogans of interest groups contesting the Sotomayor nomination: "judicial activism," "empathy," and so on.

Pages