Is Scalia *auditioning* for the Chief Justice position?

[TaleWgnDg]

.
Is Scalia *auditioning* for the Chief Justice position?

I'll let you decide . . .

1.) On June 27, 2002 President George W. Bush stated his theocratic litmus test for federal judicial nominees:





2.) Then on March 2, 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

---

BTW, shouldn't you be insulted by Scalia's arrogance? His swipe at America? Its ignorance? That we don't know the 10 Commandments or their meaning? And the inference . . . that only Scalia does, that he is in the 10% and 15%? This is the guy who's auditioning for the Chief Justice's job. Whoa be it for America!!

---

.

[Maat]

1. Counselor,

I have always felt that Scalia just plain reeks of arrogance.

I don't know about you, but his opinions (dissents, whatever) never made much sense to me in law school. It was clear he had a political agenda, and wanted to push a view of the law ("strict constructionism"), but he never developed a rationale for it. He just went off on a tangent.

I'm positive he will be our next Chief Justice (and it will be a very sad day when he is appointed).

His statement above again does not make sense to me. Of course, I just finished reading quotes by Jefferson and Adams, and it is clear to me what kind of government they wanted; they certainly didn't want any references to authority being derived from God. Jefferson made it clear that religion (and references to God) were a private matter; he didn't like talking about his personal beliefs.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. More *fun* stuff . . .

.

More *fun* stuff at:

1.) "I am a textualist," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I am an originalist. I am not a nut."
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/alert_archive/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=118

2.) " 'I am not a strict constructionist,' Justice Antonin Scalia said. . . . Scalia acknowledged a certain notoriety. He expressed amusement that he is often asked 'When did you first become an originalist?' like it's a weird affliction that seizes people, like 'When did you start eating human flesh?' And he observed, with some pride: 'My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35096-2005Mar14.html (Scalia giving a lecture at the Woodrow Wilson Center on Monday, March 15, 2005).

3.) Some scholars detect a rightward drift in Justice Scalia's recent decisions. "When I worked for (Scalia), he had a set of principles, and those principles led to principled results, which were sometimes conservative and sometimes liberal," said Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford who was also a law clerk to Justice Scalia. "I don't understand anymore how his jurisprudence follows from his principles," said Lessig. (boldface emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/alert_archive/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=118

4.) "Just as that manner of textual exegesis facilitates the formulation of general rules, so does, in the constitutional field, adherence to a more or less originalist theory of construction. The raw material for the general rule is readily apparent. If a barn was not considered the curtilage of a house in 1791 or 1868 and the Fourth Amendment did not cover it then, unlawful entry into a barn today may be a trespass, but not an unconstitutional search and seizure. It is more difficult, it seems to me, to derive such a categorical general rule from evolving notions of personal privacy. Similarly, even if one rejects an originalist approach, it is easier to arrive at categorical rules if one acknowledges that the content of evolving concepts is strictly limited by the actual practices of the society, as reflected in the laws enacted by its legislatures."
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Tq80o9ALWzoJ:angel.ac.yu.edu/CLSUploads/Files/khuigens/Scaliz.doc+Scalia+originalist+CBS&hl=en (a 1989 University of Chicago Law Review article authored by Scalia where Scalia waxes and pontificates how accurate and authoritatively superior is his theory of jurisprudence he calls "originalism" or "textualism.")

---

All this to merely turn the legal clock back to a time when the Bill of Rights didn't "attach" to the States, corporations ran untrammeled by federal judicial opinions, and the right to privacy was an unconceptualized figment of legal imagination . . .

---

[Maat]

3. It really makes my head hurt.

I just took the Cal-Bar-Exam in Feb.; I won't get my results until May. I sure hope I pass that thing before these new decisions come about. You know, "Up is down. Down is up." I have to pass that thing while individuals still have rights I can talk about.

I think that Rehnquist will last until at least mid-year. O.K., he's always wanted to return us to the 1950's ideal (which never existed really), but even he has certain standards. He thumped them a few months back, reminding them of the independence of the judiciary.

Can you imagine what you described up there happening? Horrifying. At least I live in California (but Arnold is working on changing our state constitution as we speak).

It just makes my head hurt.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. My best to you . . . !!

.

My best to you . . . !!

After all, California is the hardest bar exam in the country! Yup, I empathize about trying to cognitively and reasonably resolve the law only to find a new case tosses a hammer into the works a few weeks before sitting for the bar: "Oh, lookie here, there's a whole new branch to search and seizure!"

As for Rehnquist, he was the worst of the worst. That is, until Scalia came along followed by his echo Clarence Thomas. Both of whom are so damn out of touch w/ mainstream law and are on the edge of the law (?) that neither deserve nor should be sitting on the bench! So much for Scalia's Senate vote of 98-0 that placed him on the bench.

In all sincerity, try slogging through Scalia's law review article (above posted url) to see where he places his pontificating and arrogant jurisprudence hat. However, all that being said, I doubt that this Senate will allow Scalia to be C.J. Unless, that is, there's something more serious to filibuster/negotiate regarding a worse SCOTUS candidate/nominee than would be Scalia as C.J.

---

[Maat]

5. Thanks.

And I completely agree.

I'm just not optimistic about where we are headed (from a legal system standpoint).

Wait a minute - AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" just started playing in my brain ...