Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court, Dies at 79
Justice Antonin Scalia, whose transformative legal theories,
vivid writing and outsize personality made him a leader of a conservative
intellectual renaissance in his three decades on the Supreme Court, was found
dead on Saturday at a resort in West Texas. He was 79.
“He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and
treasured by his colleagues,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a
statement confirming Justice Scalia’s death. “His passing is a great loss to
the Court and the country he so loyally served.”
The cause of death was not immediately released. A
spokeswoman for the United States Marshals Service, which sent personnel to the
scene, said there was nothing to indicate the death was the result of anything
other than natural causes.
Justice Scalia began his service on the court as an outsider
known for caustic dissents that alienated even potential allies. But his
theories, initially viewed as idiosyncratic, gradually took hold, and not only
on the right and not only in the courts.
He was, Judge Richard A. Posner wrote in The New Republic in
2011, “the most influential justice of the last quarter-century.” Justice
Scalia was a champion of originalism, the theory of constitutional
interpretation that seeks to apply the understanding of those who drafted and
ratified the Constitution. In Justice Scalia’s hands, originalism generally led
to outcomes that pleased political conservatives, but not always. His approach
was helpful to criminal defendants in cases involving sentencing and the
cross-examination of witnesses.
Justice Scalia also disdained the use of legislative history
— statements from members of Congress about the meaning and purposes of laws —
in the judicial interpretation of statutes. He railed against vague laws that
did not give potential defendants fair warning of what conduct was criminal. He
preferred bright-line rules to legal balancing tests, and he was sharply
critical of Supreme Court opinions that did not provide lower courts and
litigants with clear guidance.
All of these views took shape in dissents. Over time, they
came to influence and in many cases dominate the debate at the Supreme Court,
in lower courts, among lawyers and in the legal academy.
By the time he wrote his most important majority opinion,
finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms,
even the dissenters were engaged in trying to determine the original meaning of
the Constitution, the approach he had championed.
That 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, also
illustrated a second point: Justice Scalia in his later years was willing to
bend a little to attract votes from his colleagues. In Heller, the price of
commanding a majority appeared to be including a passage limiting the practical
impact of the decision.
With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010,
Justice Scalia became the longest-serving member of the current court. By then,
Justice Scalia was routinely writing for the majority in the major cases,
including ones on the First Amendment, class actions and arbitration.
He was an exceptional stylist who labored over his opinions
and took pleasure in finding precisely the right word or phrase. In dissent, he
took no prisoners. The author of a majority opinion could be confident that a
Scalia dissent would not overlook any shortcomings.
Justice Scalia wrote for a broader audience than most of his
colleagues did. His opinions were read by lawyers and civilians for pleasure
and instruction.
At oral argument, Justice Scalia took professorial delight
in sparring with the advocates before him. He seemed to play to the crowd in
the courtroom, which rewarded his jokes with generous laughter.
Justice Scalia’s sometimes withering questioning helped
transform what had been a sleepy bench when he arrived into one that Chief
Justice Roberts has said has become too active, with the justices interrupting
the lawyers and each other.
The tenure of the conservative justice spans almost three
decades, and includes a legacy of sharply written opinions.
Some of Justice Scalia’s recent comments from the bench were
raw and provocative. In an affirmative action case in December, he said that
some minority students may be better off at “a less advanced school, a
slower-track school where they do well.”
“I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing
for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” he said,
describing — some said distorting — an argument in a supporting brief about the
harm that can be caused to students with inferior academic credentials by
admitting them to colleges where they do not thrive.
Justice Scalia was a man of varied tastes, with a fondness
for poker, opera and hunting. His friends called him Nino, and they said he
enjoyed nothing more than a good joke at his own expense.
He seldom agreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the
important questions that reached the court, but the two for years celebrated
New Year’s Eve together. Not long after Justice Elena Kagan, another liberal,
joined the court, Justice Scalia took her skeet shooting.
Antonin Gregory Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in
Trenton, to Salvatore Scalia and the former Catherine Panaro. He was their only
child and was showered with attention from his parents and their siblings, none
of whom had children of their own.
Justice Scalia and his wife, the former Maureen McCarthy,
had nine children, the upshot of what he called Vatican roulette. “We were both
devout Catholics,” Justice Scalia told Joan Biskupic for her 2009 biography,
“American Original.” “And being a devout Catholic means you have children when
God gives them to you, and you raise them.”
He said his large family influenced his legal philosophy.
“Parents know that children will accept quite readily all
sorts of arbitrary substantive dispositions — no television in the afternoon,
or no television in the evening, or even no television at all,” he said at a
Harvard lecture in 1989. “But try to let one brother or sister watch television
when the others do not, and you will feel the fury of the fundamental sense of
justice unleashed.”
Young Antonin was an exceptional student, graduating as
valedictorian from Xavier High School in Lower Manhattan, first in his class at
Georgetown and magna cum laude at Harvard Law School.
He practiced law for six years in Cleveland before accepting
a position teaching law at the University of Virginia in 1967. Four years
later, he entered government service, first as general counsel of the Office of
Telecommunications Policy and then as chairman of the Administrative Conference
of the United States, an executive branch agency that advises federal
regulators. Both positions drew on and expanded his expertise in administrative
law, a topic that would interest him throughout his career.
In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon nominated him to be
assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, an elite
unit of the Justice Department that advises the executive branch on the law. He
was confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 22, 1974, not long after Nixon resigned.
In 1977, Mr. Scalia returned to the legal academy, now
joining the law faculty at the University of Chicago. He also served as editor
of Regulation magazine, published by the American Enterprise Institute.
After Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, Mr.
Scalia was interviewed for a job he coveted, solicitor general of the United
States, the lawyer who represents the federal government in the Supreme Court.
He lost out to Rex E. Lee, and it stung. “I was bitterly disappointed,” Justice
Scalia told Ms. Biskupic. “I never forgot it.”
He was offered a seat on the federal appeals court in
Chicago. But he turned it down in the hope of being nominated instead to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose
docket, location and prestige appealed to him. The court was also widely viewed
as a steppingstone to the Supreme Court.
The first opening on the D.C. Circuit in the Reagan years
went to another prominent conservative law professor, Robert H. Bork. But the
second one, in 1982, went to Mr. Scalia.
He served for four years, issuing opinions favoring
executive power, skeptical of claims of employment discrimination and hostile
to the press. The opinions, which were forceful and sometimes funny, attracted
the attention of the White House.
He appeared to enjoy intellectual give-and-take from the
bench, with his colleagues and in his chambers. On the appeals court and in his
early years on the Supreme Court, he would hire one liberal law clerk each year
to keep discussions lively.
“He made it a point of telling me that I was his token
liberal,” said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, who served as a law clerk for Judge Scalia
in 1986, his last year on the appeals court. “To his credit, I’m sure it was
largely because he wanted to be sure he always heard the arguments against the
positions he was taking.”
No comments:
Post a Comment