Is Antonin Scalia Off His Rocker or Just a Sore Loser?

[marmar]

(Truthdig) Has Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia completely lost his mind? Or is he better understood as the court’s biggest sore loser, who just can’t accept the fact that his colleagues roundly rejected his blustery constitutional and statutory interpretation when they ruled last month in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges and Obamacare in King v. Burwell.

Although I favor sore-loser explanation over the Mad-Hatter analysis there are good reasons to answer both questions in the affirmative. They are not, after all, mutually exclusive.

Those who think Nino, as his close friends and associates call him, has stepped through the jurisprudential looking glass can find ample support for their position in Scalia’s splenetic dissents in Obergefell and King. They can also point to Scalia’s bizarre behavior in court on the last day of the tribunal’s recently ended term, when he reportedly veered “off-script” after Justice Samuel Alito read the main opinion in Glossip v. Gross, an unsuccessful death-penalty challenge to lethal injection, and delivered yet another tirade about Obergefell, which had been decided three days earlier.

As I explained before in this column, the issue in King concerned four words buried in section 1311 of the 381,000-word Affordable Care Act dealing with federal income tax subsidies for low-income purchasers of health insurance. .............(more)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/is_antonin_scalia_off_his_rocker_or_just_a_sore_loser_20150713

[unblock]

1. "the long arc of scalia’s tenure is now clearly bending toward travesty"

[calimary]

2. I would say both.

Either one fits, together or separately.

[betsuni]

3. Off his rocker and around the corner waiting for the bus to Atlantis. nt

[bigwillq]

4. Both (nt)

[fadedrose]

5. Both nt

[DJ13]

6. Is there a means to removing a Justice should he go mad?

[longship]

7. It is called impeachment.

And it is not bloody likely with today's House of Representatives. And there's no way that today's US Senate convicts the SOB, even if he were impeached.

In other words, no way. Nino is there until he resigns or dies. The same with Thomas.

[MADem]

8. If I have to choose, I'd say the rocker wins.

Otherwise, I'd go with "both."

[Agschmid]

9. I'll take "both" for $500.

[JonLP24]

10. Sore loser

Don't ever think he isn't intelligent (intelligence and integrity are two different things) or losing it.

During oral argument before the Court, Scalia asks more questions and makes more comments than any other justice[33]—and a 2005 study found that he provokes laughter more often than any of his colleagues.[34] His goal during oral arguments is to get across his position to the other justices.[35] University of Kansas social psychologist Lawrence Wrightsman wrote of Scalia's style, "he communicates a sense of urgency on the bench, and his style is forever forceful".[33] Since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court in 2005, he has taken to questioning counsel in a manner similar to Scalia's and sometimes the two question counsel in seeming coordination.[35] Dahlia Lithwick of Slate described Scalia's technique:

Scalia doesn't come into oral argument all secretive and sphinxlike, feigning indecision on the nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.[36]

Scalia has, from the start of his career on the Supreme Court, written large numbers of opinions. During his tenure, he has written more concurring opinions than any other justice, and only two justices have written more dissents.[37] According to Kevin Ring, who compiled a book of Scalia's dissenting and concurring opinions, "His opinions are ... highly readable. His entertaining writing style can make even the most mundane areas of the law interesting."[38] Conor Clarke of Slate comments on Scalia's written opinions, especially his dissents:

His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusions—often very funny ones—and he speaks in no uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal jargon. But most of all, Scalia's opinions read like they're about to catch fire for pure outrage. He does not, in short, write like a happy man.[39]

At the Supreme Court, justices meet after the case is briefed and argued, and vote on the result. The task of writing the opinion is assigned by the Chief Justice, or if he is in the minority or not participating, by the senior justice in the majority. After the assignment, the justices generally communicate about a case by sending notes and draft opinions to each other's chambers.[40] In the give and take of opinion writing, Scalia does not compromise his views in order to attract five votes for a majority (unlike the late Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. who would accept less than he wanted in order to gain a partial victory).[41] Scalia, known to his friends and colleagues as "Nino",[42] attempts to influence his colleagues by sending them "Ninograms"—short memoranda aimed at trying to get them to include his views in their opinions.[37][42]

<snip>

His dislike of legislative history may be a reason why other justices have become more cautious in its use.[122] Gregory Maggs wrote in the Public Interest Law Review in 1995 that by the early 1990s, legislative history was being cited in only about forty percent of Supreme Court cases involving the interpretation of statutes, and no case of that era used legislative history as an essential reason for the outcome. Maggs suggested,

With Justice Scalia breathing down the necks of anyone who peeks into the Congressional Record or Senate reports, the other members of the Court may have concluded that the benefit of citing legislative history does not outweigh its costs. It is likely for this reason that the percentage of cases citing it has decreased dramatically. No one likes an unnecessary fight, especially not one with as formidable an opponent as Justice Scalia.[122]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia#Legal_philosophy_and_approach

There seems to be a method to his madness.

[NJCher]

14. have to wonder

If Scalia proponents edited that Wikipedia article.

It sounds like he desperately wants to be influential, but does not possess the tools of persuasion. His tactics work, but they alienate.

Read that description over and ask if you'd like to work with a guy like that.


Cher

[JonLP24]

15. I wouldn't want to work with him even before ever reading it

His tactics work was all I saw seeing the kinda power he holds on the bench. if I was in the same job with him I'd want to flee because he'd likely sabotage his way to the top. I don't know how much of what goes in the Supreme Court to know how much of this is bias as I came to it awhile ago to learn more but if he does have this kind of power meaning they have to work around him. I don't think he has great ideas or anything like that just that he may be effective (but for the wrong reasons).

[struggle4progress]

11. He'll be goin round the bend when he goes!

He'll be goin round the bend when he goes!
He'll be goin round the bend
He'll be goin round the bend
He'll be goin round the bend when he goes!

[rpannier]

12. What is Both

I have won Final Jeopardy and am today's champion

[GoneOffShore]

13. Both. He's never been a a reasonable jurist.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Both and then some, he's also a disingenuous hypocrite,

a man of poor temperament even when his side wins and filled with bitter rigidity.

I would also wager he has bad breath even after brushing.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[kiranon]

17. Scalia places what he thinks is religion before the Constitution.

His understanding of the Constitution flows from his ideological rigidity in politics and religion. He is a true believer and uses his intelligence and cunning to subvert any compassionate agenda which he considers weak and "liberal" - the most hated position of all in his world view. He is not aging well and may be losing it mentally but he, essentially, lost his soul long ago. IMHO. Can't imagine he knows what to do about Pope Francis and the Pope's compassionate view of the poor. Pope Francis shows Scalia up to be the fool he has always been.

[herding cats]

18. It doesn't have to be either/or.

I had a retaliative with Parkinson. They became very religious and suffered from grandiose delusions after becoming ill. The doctor said it wasn't a common side effect, but it wasn't unheard of either. Scalia reminds me of them at times with the way he rambles and is hyper vigilant about his belief system. I'm not saying he has Parkinson's, but there are many other conditions which are much more likely to cause grandiose delusions that that Parkinson's.