Justice Antonin Scalia

  • September 30, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Earlier this year, a little more than a month after mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school, President Obama discussed the challenges of trying to implement gun safety measures and announced more than 20 executive orders, including an order for the Centers for Disease Control to study ways to reduce gun violence. The president’s call for Congress to take action and approve modest new measures flopped … in the Senate. And even if senators had approved new measures promoting gun safety it is hard to believe they would have been considered in the House of Representatives, where Republicans are bent on protecting the financial industry and defunding of the Affordable Care Act.  

    But executive orders alone are hardly going to reframe the debate let alone significantly curtail gun violence. Yet another study shows how obstinate refusal to even basic reforms of gun regulation is needlessly taking innocent lives yearly.

    In an extensive piece forThe New York Times, Michael Luo and Mike McIntire reveal that accidental deaths of children because of guns are far higher than government statistics show, primarily because of the success of the gun lobby in defeating all kinds of efforts, including research to promote gun safety. The Times reported that a “review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by authorities. As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.”

    That debate has largely been controlled by gun enthusiasts and their lobbyists, who frequently blast any regulation as an encroachment on Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. For, example, The Times noted that the National Rifle Association cited the inaccurate numbers of accidental child firearm deaths in its campaign to scuttle laws requiring the safe storage of guns. State lawmakers ape the NRA’s talking points, often arguing that safe-storage laws would undermine adults’ efforts to protect themselves from intruders.

    Moreover the newspaper noted that the gun lobby has remained successful at making sure firearms remain exempt from “regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.” As one expert lamented, “We know in the world of injury controls that designing safer products is often the most efficient way to reduce tragedies. Why, if we have childproof aspirin bottles, don’t we have childproof guns?”

    The U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled in 2008 in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. That ruling greatly enhanced the gun lobby’s cudgel against any consideration of new gun safety measures, such as ones intended to encourage parents to keep firearms stored safely.

  • September 20, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    In an impassioned speech before a gathering on Constitution Day earlier this week retired Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson tackled the ongoing effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia’s defense of originalsim.

    Nelson’s speech, a must-read for all interested in constitutional debate, started with a look at the Roberts Court’s 2010 opinion in Citizens United giving corporations greater ability to spend on elections, including judicial elections. Citing a recent study sponsored by ACS, Justice at Risk, Nelson (pictured) noted how quickly Citizens United has impacted state Supreme Court judicial elections. (Justice at Risk: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions provides new data showing, among other things, a significant relationship between group contributions to state Supreme Court justices and the voting of those justices in cases involving business matters.)

    Nelson said, in part:

    Importantly for Montana judicial elections, the data show expenditures influenced judges’ decisions in both partisan and non-partisan elections systems. The report reveals the influx of expenditures generated by Citizens United and subsequent cases is having significant impact on judicial impartiality. The data demonstrate there is stronger correlation between business contributions and judges voting in the period from 2010 – 2012, compared to 1995 – 1998. And, unfortunately, Justice at Risk concludes that there is no sign that politicization of Supreme Court elections is lessening. Indeed, powerful interest groups’ influence on judicial outcomes will only intensify.

    Nelson dove into the ongoing debate over constitutional interpretation, tying it to the outcome in Citizens United. Last month at a Federal Society gathering in Bozeman, Justice Scalia provided yet another defense of originalism as a serious method of constitutional interpretation.

    In post for ACSblog’s 2013 Constitution Day symposium, Erwin Chemerinsky remarked that it is rather obvious why originalism is a wobbly way to attempt to interpret and apply constitutional principles and values. It makes little sense, Chemerinsky wrote, “to be governed in the 21st century by the intent of those in 1787 (or 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted or 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified).”

    At the University of Montana School of Law event, hosted by the ACS Montana Chapter, Nelson had similar observations, saying “originalism is grounded more in opportunistic hypocrisy than in fact and substance.”

  • September 16, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    It’s hardly news that Justice Antonin Scalia does not much care for the term living constitution. In late 2011 before a U.S. Senate Committee, he went on a bit of a rant over methods of constitutional interpretation and ended by saying that he was “hopeful the living constitution will die.”

    Longtime Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro, opting for an event featuring the increasingly predictable justice at a George Washington University instead of say ACS’s annual Supreme Court Preview, found Scalia once again championing so-called originalism and deriding a serious approach to interpreting the broad language of the U.S. Constitution.

    Mauro reported that Scalia “urged everyone to celebrate the birthday of the U.S. Constitution tomorrow – except those who think the document is an ‘empty body’ whose meaning can be filled in by an activist judge. In that case, Scalia said in his best New York accent, ‘Fugget about the Constitution!’”

    In a post today for ACSblog’s symposium on Constitution Day, which runs through this week, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and distinguished law professor at the University of California, Irvine, explains why originalism, the method on constitutional interpretation trumpeted by Scalia, is inherently wobbly.

    It’s obvious, Chemerinsky writes, why originalism has not been embraced by a majority of Supreme Court justices: “it makes no sense to be governed in the 21st century by the intent of those in 1787 (or 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted or 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified).”

    During that 2011 testimony before the Senate, Scalia was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, who after listening to Scalia; urged the senators to remember John Marshall’s words, “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” According to Breyer, Marshall understood that the framers were thinking about a document that would endure for generations to come.

    Scalia will likely continue to pine for the death of a living a constitution, but as Chemerinsky and many other constitutional law scholars have noted time and again the document contains, broad language for a purpose, one that eludes Justice Scalia.

  • June 26, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Beyond providing victory for equality, today’s Supreme Court opinion striking an integral provision of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act sent Justice Antonin Scalia into a fitful and contradictory rage.

    Though Scalia joined the majority opinion of Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated a congressional action, usurping Congress’ constitutional authority to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, today he railed against the majority for invalidating Sec. 3 of DOMA, which unlike the Voting Rights Act, worked to discriminate against a certain group of people -- lesbians and gay men. So yesterday, Scalia joined his right-wing colleagues in gutting a landmark federal law aimed at preventing discrimination, while today he lodged an over-the-top dissent against striking down a provision of a blatantly discriminatory federal law. And he did so, as TPM’s Sahil Kapur notes, in fiery fashion – rather like he did in dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas issued 10 years ago today invalidating a state law discriminating against lesbians and gay men.

    According to Scalia, the majority in U.S. v. Windsor led by Justice Anthony Kennedy provided a “jaw-dropping” expansion of judicial review. “It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every-where ‘primary’ in its role,” Scalia fumed.

    He didn’t stop there, adding the Constitution’s framers would not recognize the “black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”

    Scalia, after grousing at great length, that the majority should not have decided the case, went on to provide his “view of the merits.”

    And his views on lesbians and gay men and laws that discriminate against them have not moved in 10 years.

  • June 20, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    During her featured remarks at the 2013 ACS National Convention, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ripped the federal bench, and the Supreme Court in particular, for a pro-corporate trend. Today the high court issued an opinion in American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant that buttresses Warren’s sharp critique.

    In the American Express case, the Court’s right-wing justices found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) blocks courts from invalidating contractual waivers of class arbitration, another blow to individuals hoping to band together to hold corporations accountable for malfeasance. A group of merchants who accept American Express cards had lodged a class action against the financial giant arguing that its rate on accepting American Express cards violated federal antitrust laws. The high court led by Justice Antonin Scalia, however, essentially held that a clause in the American Express agreement barring class action arbitration trumped antitrust laws.

    Scalia maintained that the FAA was enacted by Congress as a “response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration” and that its text “reflects the overarching principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. There is no ‘contrary congressional command’ that “requires us to reject the waiver of class arbitration here,” Scalia wrote.

    Scalia notes the merchants argued that forcing them to litigate individually would prove too costly, but concluded “the antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable path to the vindication of every claim.” Later in the opinion, Scalia writes, “But the fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy.”

    As Media Matters’ Senior Counsel & Director of its Courts Matter project Lara Schwartz noted, “In other words, Scalia essentially was saying it’s OK if the rules make it impossible to win as long as they don’t make it impossible to play.

    Justice Elena Kagan lodged a dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself in this case). Kagan wrote, that the “owner of a small restaurant (Italian Colors) thinks that American Express (Amex) has used its monopoly power to force merchants to accept a form contract violating the antitrust laws.” But that same agreement with Amex barred the restaurateur from bringing the claim.

    “And here is the nutshell version of today’s opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad.”