Antonin Scalia, left, and John Paul Stevens, pictured in 2005, have been intellectual antagonists for more than two decades.
(Lauren Victoria Burke/associated Press)
It is fitting that the last duel between the old ink-slingers at the Marble Palace was over guns.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia have been taking shots at each other for more than two decades -- their grudging mutual respect apparently as deep as their disagreements.
Their last showdown before Stevens rode off into the sunset came in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The court's 5 to 4 decision said the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as Congress. Scalia was in the majority, Stevens among the dissenters, and the two of them took about a third of the ruling's 214 pages to explain their reasonings.
This was not unusual. Two of the court's leading intellectuals, Scalia and Stevens disagreed with each other about as often as any other pair on the court. Their conflicts involved the court's most enduring controversies -- abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, political speech -- and, just as importantly, diametrically opposed views on how to interpret the Constitution...
"The judge who would outsource the interpretation of 'liberty' to historical sentiment has turned his back on a task the Constitution assigned to him and drained the document of its intended vitality," Stevens wrote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502314.html