US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[rooster59]

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — Antonin Scalia, the influential conservative and most provocative member of the U.S. Supreme Court, has died. He was 79.

The U.S. Marshals Service in Washington confirmed Scalia's death at a private residence in the Big Bend area of West Texas. Spokeswoman Donna Sellers said Scalia had retired the previous evening and was found dead Saturday morning after he did not appear for breakfast.

His death sets up a likely ideological showdown during a presidential election year as President Barack Obama weighs nominating a successor to the justice in the remainder of his White House term. Scalia was part of a 5-4 conservative majority — with one of the five, Anthony Kennedy, sometimes voting with liberals on the court.

Scalia used his keen intellect and missionary zeal in an unyielding attempt to move the court farther to the right after his 1986 nomination to the high court by President Ronald Reagan. He also advocated tirelessly in favor of originalism, the approach to constitutional interpretation that looks to the meaning of words and concepts as they were understood by the Founding Fathers.

Scalia's impact on the court was muted by his seeming disregard for moderating his views to help build consensus, although he was held in deep affection by his ideological opposites but fellow New Yorkers, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Scalia and Ginsburg shared a love of opera. He persuaded Kagan to join him on hunting trips.

His 2008 opinion for the court in favor of gun rights drew heavily on the history of the Second Amendment and was his crowning moment on the bench. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

He could be a strong supporter of privacy in cases involving police searches and defendants' rights. Indeed, Scalia often said he should be the "poster child" for the criminal defense bar.

But he also voted consistently to let states outlaw abortions, to allow a closer relationship between government and religion, to permit executions and to limit lawsuits.

He was in the court's majority in the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, which effectively decided the presidential election for Republican George W. Bush. "Get over it," Scalia would famously say at speaking engagements in the ensuing years whenever the topic arose.

Bush later named one of Scalia's sons, Eugene, to an administration job, but the Senate refused to confirm him. Eugene Scalia served as the Labor Department solicitor temporarily in a recess appointment.

A smoker of cigarettes and pipes, Scalia enjoyed baseball, poker, hunting and the piano. He was an enthusiastic singer at court Christmas parties and other musical gatherings, and once appeared on stage with Ginsburg as a Washington Opera extra.

Ginsburg once said that Scalia was "an absolutely charming man, and he can make even the most sober judge laugh." She said that she urged her friend to tone down his dissenting opinions "because he'll be more effective if he is not so polemical. I'm not always successful."

He could be unsparing even with his allies. In 2007, Scalia sided with Chief Justice John Roberts in a decision that gave corporations and labor unions wide latitude to air political ads close to elections. Yet Scalia was upset that the new chief justice's opinion did not explicitly overturn an earlier decision. "This faux judicial restraint is judicial obfuscation," Scalia said.

Quick-witted and loquacious, Scalia was among the most persistent, frequent and quotable interrogators of the lawyers who appeared before the court.

During Scalia's first argument session as a court member, Justice Lewis F. Powell leaned over and asked a colleague, "Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?"

Scalia's writing seemed irrepressible and entertaining much of the time. But it also could be confrontational. It was a mocking Scalia who in 1993 criticized a decades-old test used by the court to decide whether laws or government policies violated the constitutionally required separation of church and state.

"Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, (the test) stalks our ... jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys," he wrote.

Scalia showed a deep commitment to originalism, which he later began calling textualism. Judges had a duty to give the same meaning to the Constitution and laws as they had when they were written. Otherwise, he said disparagingly, judges could decide that "the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean."

A challenge to a Washington, D.C., gun ban gave Scalia the opportunity to display his devotion to textualism. In a 5-4 decision that split the court's conservatives and liberals, Scalia wrote that an examination of English and colonial history made it exceedingly clear that the Second Amendment protected Americans' right to have guns, at the very least in their homes and for self-defense. The dissenters, also claiming fidelity to history, said the amendment was meant to ensure that states could raise militias to confront a too-powerful federal government if necessary.

But Scalia rejected that view. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

His dissents in cases involving gay rights could be as biting as they were prescient. "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," Scalia wrote in dissent in 2013 when the court struck down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law. Six months later, a federal judge in Utah cited Scalia's dissent in his opinion striking down that state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Scalia was passionate about the death penalty. He wrote for the court when in 1989 it allowed states to use capital punishment for killers who were 16 or 17 when they committed their crimes. He was on the losing side in 2005 when the court changed course and declared it unconstitutional for states to execute killers that young.

"The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards — and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures," Scalia wrote in a scathing dissent.

In 2002, he dissented from the court's decision to outlaw executing the mentally retarded. That same year, Scalia surprised some people with a public declaration of independence from his Roman Catholic church on the death penalty. He said judges who follow the philosophy that capital punishment is morally wrong should resign.

Scalia also supported free speech rights, but complained too. "I do not like scruffy people who burn the American flag," he said in 2002, but "regrettably, the First Amendment gives them the right to do that."

A longtime law professor before becoming a judge, Scalia frequently spoke at law schools and to other groups. Later in his tenure, he also spoke at length in on-the-record interviews, often to promote a book.

He betrayed no uncertainty about some of the most contentious legal issues of the day. The framers of the Constitution didn't think capital punishment was unconstitutional and neither did he.

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said during a talk that preceded a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute in 2012.

The only child of an Italian immigrant father who was a professor of Romance languages and a mother who taught elementary school, Scalia was born in Trenton, N.J. on March 11, 1936. His family moved to the New York City, where he attended public schools and a Catholic high school. He graduated first in his class at Georgetown University and won high honors at the Harvard University Law School.

He worked at a large Cleveland law firm for six years before joining the faculty of the University of Virginia's law school. He left that job to work in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

From 1977 to 1982, Scalia taught law at the University of Chicago.

He then was appointed by Reagan to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Scalia and his wife, Maureen, had nine children.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-14

[OMGImInPattaya]

He was an angry and petty little man, railing at the modern world, and the world is better off without him.

[Boon Mee]

Scalia was a towering figure of the Conservative theology and it's too bad the Left have already started spewing their invictive. Typical.

Any bets Scalia was Vince Fostered, eh?

[Scott]

My condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

Does anybody know the cause of death?

[sirineou]

RIP

But I cant say that I am sorry to see him go. This is huge, it will change the balance of power in the Supreme court and lead to some more progressive decisions

[kingalfred]

Scalia was a towering figure of the Conservative theology and it's too bad the Left have already started spewing their invictive. Typical.

Any bets Scalia was Vince Fostered, eh?

actually its the right wing and republicans who are saying that the supreme court should not have a new judge for a year. They lost their ancient relic of bigoted conservatism . Hope the President selects a latino or black successor and as expected the Repub Senate reject. See how that plays in the states that will decide election in November!

[GinBoy2]

Scalia was an interesting figure on the SCOTUS. It's not that I particularly agreed with his many, if not all, of his political opinions, but he was without doubt one of the best constitutional intellects ever to serve on the bench.

He will be remembered I think for bringing the most robust oral arguments even seen, which if compared to his conservative peer, Justice Thomas, makes him even more of a towering figure on the court.

It's always interesting to me to compare the interpersonal relationships of true intellects of opposing thought to the crude and vitriolic nature of most of todays political discourse, where both sides view the other as figures to be vilified.

The relationship between Scalia & Justice Ginsberg, two figures who couldn't have been further apart in their political beliefs, but maintained the deepest personal friendship for each other, should be a lesson to many who seem incapable of debating anything in a civilized and thoughtful manor without resorting the tribal hatred and vitriol so prevalent in todays politics

[Ulysses G.]

Hope the President selects a latino or black successor and as expected the Repub Senate reject.

Select Ben Carson and everything will be hunky dory!

[attrayant]

My condolences to the Koch brothers for their loss.

[brewsterbudgen]

My condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

Does anybody know the cause of death?

Being reported as "natural causes". He felt unwell after quail hunting, went to bed and was found "unresponsive" in the morning.

[Felipesed]

Scalia was a towering figure of the Conservative theology and it's too bad the Left have already started spewing their invictive. Typical.

Any bets Scalia was Vince Fostered, eh?

actually its the right wing and republicans who are saying that the supreme court should not have a new judge for a year. They lost their ancient relic of bigoted conservatism . Hope the President selects a latino or black successor and as expected the Repub Senate reject. See how that plays in the states that will decide election in November!

So you think that a Supreme Court judge should be appointed purely on the basis of his/her race, and for a potential short-term political gain?

On that basis, no doubt you would be happy to see Obama nominated? Then he could continue with his present attempts to undermine the Constitution!

[Publicus]

Just as the potus has the constitutional duty and responsibility to nominate a new successor justice, the Senate has the Constitutional duty and obligation to advise and consent accordingly. It is a matter of fidelity to the Constitution to present and consider a nominee.

Scalia was one of the double-niner justices who in the fall of 2000 got to vote twice for the office of POTUS. Scalia will be in the history books as one of those in the majority of five and among the minority of four. The shameless double-niners of year 2000. Scalia's notorious comment of the time was to "get over it."

Scalia's Originalist judicial philosophy was adapted from nothing more than the Bible which is a book of fables, tall tales, fantasies, imaginings, fairies. This is a sorry and poor basis of comprehending a Constitution based in the European Enlightenment.

I've already got over Anonin Scalia's unfortunate death. Scalia had intelligence but he had a strongheaded a wrongheaded interpretation of the world. A justice is dead, long serve an immediately new justice.

[keemapoot]

My condolences to the Koch brothers for their loss.

My condolences to conservative Catholics and other Christian religious nuts and assorted other moral supremacists and anti-homosexuals.

[CaptHaddock]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

[lannarebirth]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

[keemapoot]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

Not only that, the Supreme Court denies 99% of all cases filing a writ of Cert., so that a one year delay may or not be meaningful depending on the case. I'm not even sure with 8 members if they can grant any writs of Certiorari or not, too lazy to look it up.

[attrayant]

Does anybody know the cause of death?

Justice Scalia dies following 30-year battle with social progress

[CaptHaddock]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

But, in that case, the constitutional issue is not decided. No precedent is set. The reason the institution of the Supreme Court exists is because constitutional issues need to be resolved. So, now in all likelihood, that essential function of government will be largely in abeyance because of the obstructive Republican Congress.

[CaptHaddock]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

Not only that, the Supreme Court denies 99% of all cases filing a writ of Cert., so that a one year delay may or not be meaningful depending on the case. I'm not even sure with 8 members if they can grant any writs of Certiorari or not, too lazy to look it up.

An eight member Court can issue cert. It doesn't take a majority. But it's meaningful because the 1% of cases are the critical ones with consitutional issues that need to be resolved. For instance, Bush v. Gore, the kind of case that could arise this year.

[Prbkk]

Nasty and uncaring man posing as a Christian. A loss only to the nutters to whom he provided succour.

[lannarebirth]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

But, in that case, the constitutional issue is not decided. No precedent is set. The reason the institution of the Supreme Court exists is because constitutional issues need to be resolved. So, now in all likelihood, that essential function of government will be largely in abeyance because of the obstructive Republican Congress.

The Supreme Court does not always set precedent in its decisions. Often it upholds precedent, as do appellate courts.

[pitrevie]

I have already read that its highly suspicious so soon after ruling against the executive a 79 year old overweight man who spends most of his time sitting down should die suddenly. Should make a good movie.

[chuckd]

I see the political ghouls are out in force applauding the death of an American who faithfully served his country.

May he RIP.

[keemapoot]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

Not only that, the Supreme Court denies 99% of all cases filing a writ of Cert., so that a one year delay may or not be meaningful depending on the case. I'm not even sure with 8 members if they can grant any writs of Certiorari or not, too lazy to look it up.

An eight member Court can issue cert. It doesn't take a majority. But it's meaningful because the 1% of cases are the critical ones with consitutional issues that need to be resolved. For instance, Bush v. Gore, the kind of case that could arise this year.

I believe it takes 4 out of the 9 to grant cert., and not sure if that rule is the same with only 8 attending. We will have to wait for an analysis (which I'm sure will be forthcoming) of the types of important cases that might be impacted.

[CaptHaddock]

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

But, in that case, the constitutional issue is not decided. No precedent is set. The reason the institution of the Supreme Court exists is because constitutional issues need to be resolved. So, now in all likelihood, that essential function of government will be largely in abeyance because of the obstructive Republican Congress.

The Supreme Court does not always set precedent in its decisions. Often it upholds precedent, as do appellate courts.

You're quibbling. Whether by upholding or overturning precedent, the Court decides the constitutional issues of the cases it accepts. That function in the US government is essential, not optional.

[CaptHaddock]

I see the political ghouls are out in force applauding the death of an American who faithfully served his country.

May he RIP.

I agree. But someone should put a stake through his heart just to be on the safe side, don't you think?

[OMGImInPattaya]

It would be interesting to see a list of significant cases which have already been argued this term but have not been voted on or decisions issued. In close cases, it will be a 4-4 split and no decision made and the lower court ruling left standing.

I'm not sure if a new case on the same issue would have to be brought again in a lower court and make its way back up to the Supremes or the case held over until a full court is empaneled. Of course, it would be expected the new could, with the Obama nominee would be a more liberal one.

Now if the indefatigable RBG would give up her seat for a relaxing retirement, Obama could secure a progressive court legacy for decades to come.

Edited February 14, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[Chicog]

Either side will do their utmost to block a nominee they don't like. But it seems the longest delay has been 125 days. Amazing how 'conservatives' seem so keen to break with the past.

[lostboy]

Scalia was a towering figure of the Conservative theology and it's too bad the Left have already started spewing their invictive. Typical.

Any bets Scalia was Vince Fostered, eh?

The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, together with related material such as the Federalist Papers comprise one of the greatest expressions of humanism in history. The formation of the US Republic was a direct result of the concept of the sovereignty of human kind and not of some Diety. Conservatism is not a theology. It is its direct opposite. The extreme right religious types are already deifying this reactionary denier of human rights. Typical.

Medieval religious hallucinations caused by ergot poisoning seem to be back among us. Please consult a physician.

[otherstuff1957]

I agree with GinBoy2, Scalia was able to separate personal and political feelings and engage in arguments without resort to personal attacks, something that is too often lacking in public discourse.

However, this headline from 'The Onion' perfectly sums up his legacy:

Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356