A few justices have promoted their books over the last few years, including now retired O'Connor and Stevens, Breyer and Scalia (from quite different ideological vantage points) probably getting the most exposure. Scalia has been doing this for awhile -- I recall back in the day him taking part in roundtable discussions of constitutional matters in relation to a PBS educational series. Justice Sotomayor has noted she thinks informing the public (including schoolchildren) an important part of her job and I think overall justices are providing a public service here.
Anyways, he is out there again promoting Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, which he wrote with a legal writer that also collaborated with on a book about "making your case." Thus, he and other justices continue the outside legal education sidelines past judges and justices took part in as seen by Justice Joseph Story. Roberts, who just handed down an order (again, why have a page on the SCOTUS site for in chambers orders, if you don't post them?) went to Malta to do this, Scalia is on Piers Morgan. I somehow missed it, but will work from the summary linked there (more with video here).
He says that there was no "falling out" with CJ Roberts, noting his friendship with ideological opposite number, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is not exactly on the same level here as Roberts, including some assumed violation of his principles, and like, would he say it if there was? Still, I think that sort of thing has been exaggerated though there might be something to it -- it's nothing new, if that's the case. Same thing with his denial that he is influenced by "politics." Bottom line there is that he has a certain ideological view that matches a political party though in various cases (see flag burning) there is not an overlap. This is not surprising; the problem is lately he seems to be getting rather lazy and letting personal sentiments cloud his legal arguments more than usual.
Says substantive due process doesn't make sense in a reference to Roe v. Wade. SDP is not just applied to that -- the First and Second Amendments are incorporated into the Fourteenth because of the same principle. It does make sense and many have explained why: basically, our system of government presupposes certain basic rights (see Declaration of Independence) and the "law of the land" is unjust ("undue") if it deprives us of certain rights, such "liberty." This was a motivation of the anti-slavery movement and was also understood to be among the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship. Justice Thomas used that route in his McDonald v. Chicago gun ruling, though he selectively ignored the SDP history too.
As to Bush v. Gore, I think he should mostly just shut up about it, the "just get over it" stuff needlessly ... I'll say it -- dickish. Some rulings will be very important and there will be strong disagreements. That's to be expected. At some point, you have to accept that one side won, each side sometimes quite sure they are correct, though you need not like it. He just comes off as a sore winner. The stuff about Gore losing the count is b.s., since we simply do not know what specific counting standard would ultimately be used if it was allowed to continue. [And more b.s.]
Scalia is clearly a smart guy with a strong point of view that overall is an asset to the bench, particularly his willingness to challenge the other side instead of (like Kennedy in various opinions) basically just seeming to ignore what they have to say. He has blinders, more than some I think, which make it hard at times to take his analysis at face value. No wonder some rather sneer at him (e.g., a comment saying he dislikes gays, that settles it for him). Also, when he is "on," he seems to play to the crowd some, perhaps it would have helped if he wasn't an only child (he has nine). [As noted here, the misguided vanity about how so principled he is vis-a-vis others is not pretty either.]
I respect him for speaking his mind and challenging others, but he still leaves a lot to be desired even if you agree with him.
Anyways, he is out there again promoting Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, which he wrote with a legal writer that also collaborated with on a book about "making your case." Thus, he and other justices continue the outside legal education sidelines past judges and justices took part in as seen by Justice Joseph Story. Roberts, who just handed down an order (again, why have a page on the SCOTUS site for in chambers orders, if you don't post them?) went to Malta to do this, Scalia is on Piers Morgan. I somehow missed it, but will work from the summary linked there (more with video here).
He says that there was no "falling out" with CJ Roberts, noting his friendship with ideological opposite number, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is not exactly on the same level here as Roberts, including some assumed violation of his principles, and like, would he say it if there was? Still, I think that sort of thing has been exaggerated though there might be something to it -- it's nothing new, if that's the case. Same thing with his denial that he is influenced by "politics." Bottom line there is that he has a certain ideological view that matches a political party though in various cases (see flag burning) there is not an overlap. This is not surprising; the problem is lately he seems to be getting rather lazy and letting personal sentiments cloud his legal arguments more than usual.
Says substantive due process doesn't make sense in a reference to Roe v. Wade. SDP is not just applied to that -- the First and Second Amendments are incorporated into the Fourteenth because of the same principle. It does make sense and many have explained why: basically, our system of government presupposes certain basic rights (see Declaration of Independence) and the "law of the land" is unjust ("undue") if it deprives us of certain rights, such "liberty." This was a motivation of the anti-slavery movement and was also understood to be among the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship. Justice Thomas used that route in his McDonald v. Chicago gun ruling, though he selectively ignored the SDP history too.
“No, I don’t think it becomes a punishment, it becomes torture,” Scalia said. “And we have laws against torture but I don’t think the Constitution addressed torture, it addressed punishment. Which means punishment for crimes. … I’m not for [torture]. But I don’t think the Constitution says anything about it.”Some have found this distasteful and it is, but not quite for the reason some think. Torture is not "punishment" for Eighth Amendment purposes, at least generally speaking. (It can be used that way and torturous punishments was a concern; on that ground alone, his comment is misleading..) Scalia, however, jumps off the rails with the last bit. For instance, if not "the" surely a core reason for the Self-Incrimination Clause was to guard against torture. It was a primary concern when it was debated and to say the Constitution doesn't "say anything" about it is rather ignorant. I discuss this matter some and a good book addressing it here. Other provisions probably also "say" something about it too, including due process, which concerns rightful treatment while in government custody.
As to Bush v. Gore, I think he should mostly just shut up about it, the "just get over it" stuff needlessly ... I'll say it -- dickish. Some rulings will be very important and there will be strong disagreements. That's to be expected. At some point, you have to accept that one side won, each side sometimes quite sure they are correct, though you need not like it. He just comes off as a sore winner. The stuff about Gore losing the count is b.s., since we simply do not know what specific counting standard would ultimately be used if it was allowed to continue. [And more b.s.]
Scalia is clearly a smart guy with a strong point of view that overall is an asset to the bench, particularly his willingness to challenge the other side instead of (like Kennedy in various opinions) basically just seeming to ignore what they have to say. He has blinders, more than some I think, which make it hard at times to take his analysis at face value. No wonder some rather sneer at him (e.g., a comment saying he dislikes gays, that settles it for him). Also, when he is "on," he seems to play to the crowd some, perhaps it would have helped if he wasn't an only child (he has nine). [As noted here, the misguided vanity about how so principled he is vis-a-vis others is not pretty either.]
I respect him for speaking his mind and challenging others, but he still leaves a lot to be desired even if you agree with him.