Huckleberries Online

Idawa: Need To Match Scalia’s Wits

Posted by DFO

May 2, 2009 12:11 a.m. • 7 comments

Idawa: it would also be good if they could find one who could match wits with Scalia. While I don’t care at all for Scalia’s jurisprudince - his sense irony and his ability to write well would be key qualifications. Here is a recent Scalia gem: “What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.” - Ha.

Question: Who is your favorite current Supreme Court justice? And/or: Who is your favorite Supreme Court justice of all time? Why?

Seven comments on this post so far. Add yours!

JIMMYMAC on May 02 at 1:41 a.m.
Favorite current (not that I am an expert on Supreme Court Justince history) is Scalia. Not entirely because of my conservative views either. Did ya catch the 60 Minutes piece on him last summer? Classic.
Sisyphus on May 02 at 8:58 a.m.
Scalia is certainly quote worthy. Actually that quote from Scalia pretty much epitomizes his philosophy. Recognize the correctness of the argument and come to the conclusion you want to arrive at anyway on the grounds that the ‘legal’ conclusion is ‘abominably poor’. I’m often surprised at the degree to which he publicly renders opinions on hot button issues that are likely to come before the court.

Asking for my favorite is like asking for my favorite movie, the top ten change all the time. One of Bob Woodward’s best books imo was The Brethren making a typically boring subject quite colorful by displaying the profiles of the justices. I admire the heart of Brennan, the tenacity of Black, the institution defending Berger, and Thurgood Marshall’s historically significant perspective. Then there’s the notable historicals like Oliver Wendell Holmes and arguably the most significant founding father of our government John Marshall, the longest serving justice, who very cleverly secured the necessary check on the executive and legislative branches of determining the constitutionality of laws enacted by those branches. But today I gotta go with fellow northwesterner William Douglas. While I didn’t always agree with his methods, he struck me as an eclectic innovative thinker who was known for empathy for any cause before the court providing a unique and refreshing perspective with due regard for possible wide ranging consequences of the court’s opinions. He also led a fascinating life.
hmoffsuite on May 02 at 9:27 a.m.
Nice post, Sis.
BethB on May 03 at 6:10 a.m.
Late to the game, I am - but didn’t see this post until the a.m.

Current - hmmm. Well, since he’s retiring, I’ll sing the praises of Souter. He’s consistent. And he’s concerned with precedent. No one can track a law into the 1800s and beyond like Souter.

Scalia - is syllogistic. Or has become so. Several instances of intellectual dishonesty have surfaced that cause me to be disappointed in him. I’m sure the fact that we view things differently plays a role. But he says he’s a strict constructionist, then has played fast and loose with that structure when it has suited him. So, not Scalia. Though he is smart. Maybe that’s why the hiccups in logic bother me so - I know he knows better.

All time? I’m going with Earl Warren. He stepped in as Chief Justice and showed tremendous courage to marshal into the law an interpretation of the Constitution that truly created access to even the most downtrodden. That was the intent of the Constitution, in my opinion. Congress is there to protect the rights of the majority; the Constitution (via the courts) is there to ensure that the majority does not overstep. And why Earl Warren over anyone else? Because he wasn’t supposed to be like that. He was supposed to be a conservative politician from California (back in the days when those existed). So it took mighty courage to realize the import of his new role - new job. Without him, segregation may have continued for decades. He insisted not only on the result but on a unanimous court putting forth that result - showing a brilliant combination of a jurist’s mind and a politician’s understanding of how the world works.

Here’s a link to three letters written by other justices to Warren about his draft opinion in Brown v. Board of Education.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mcc&fileName=052/page.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/mcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(mcc/052))

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.