Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia (born March 11, 1936) has been a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice since 1986. He is widely considered the leading originalist voice on the Court and one of the most outspoken defenders of the plain meaning rule.

Legal philosophy and approach

Scalia is considered the Court's leading proponent of originalism, and also of a what he considers a "literal" interpretation of the text of the Constitution of the United States and statutory laws that come before the Court. Justice Scalia's "textualist" approach has been compared with that of the late Justice Hugo Black.

Related Topics:
Originalism - Constitution of the United States - Hugo Black

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, Scalia's generally strict approach sometimes brings what may be characterized as "liberal" results. He notably joined the majority without qualification in Texas v. Johnson, which ruled that flag burning was protected speech. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia's dissent was the most restrictive upon the government's power to deal with U.S. citizens alleged to be "unlawful combatants," arguing that legally there was no basis for such a designation and that ordinary criminal prosecution was effectively the only option. In Ring v. Arizona, Scalia re-affirmed his view that only a jury - and not a judge - could impose the death penalty, writing that "We cannot preserve our veneration for the protection of the jury in criminal cases if we render ourselves callous to the need for that protection by regularly imposing the death penalty without it." Leading on directly and logically from Ring, Scalia wrote for the majority in Blakely v. Washington, which caused shockwaves throughout both state and federal criminal sentencing systems by ruling that sentences could not be increased because of facts determined by judges rather than juries.

Related Topics:
Texas v. Johnson - Flag burning - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Unlawful combatant - Ring v. Arizona - Blakely v. Washington

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On the controversial issue of abortion, Scalia has argued that the Constitution leaves the people of the states free to legislate for or against abortion. However, he has several times emphasized that, by the same token, "if the people want abortion, the state should permit abortion in a democracy."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Though Scalia often relies upon tradition and history to discern what the language in laws or constitutional provisions was understood to mean at the time of their passage, he considers legislative history to be an unreliable tool when determining Congressional intent. This position often puts him at odds with Justice Breyer, who is perhaps the Court's most steadfast proponent of the value of legislative history in legal interpretation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Beyond his legal philosophy, Scalia is well known for his "prickly" personality and direct lively questioning during arguments before the court; one litigator who argued before the Court compared Scalia's questioning style to "a big cat batting around a ball of yarn" (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/103/print). In his concurring and dissenting opinions, he frequently takes what may be characterized as sarcastic and biting "potshots" at the other justices, quoting them from past opinions to point out what he considers inconsistencies in their reasoning, or accusing them of inventing legal standards out of thin air.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~