Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia
December 2005: "Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children—Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960–1961. He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961–1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967–1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977–1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University. He was chairman of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law, 1981–1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982–1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971–1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972–1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974–1977. He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986."http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
March 2012: "The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power. It is the contested ground on which the health care case has been fought in the lower courts and in the parties’ briefs. And it is likely to be crucial to the votes of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, who are widely seen as open to persuasion by either side."http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/us/politics/at-center-of-health-care-fight-roscoe-filburns-1942-commerce-case.html
January 2012: 'The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, but on a different ground. “We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’ ” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.'http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html
June 2011: '“Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world),” Justice Scalia wrote. “That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.”'http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html
June 2011: "In January, the liberal advocacy organization Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from last year’s Citizens United campaign finance case because they had attended a political retreat organized by the billionaire Koch brothers, who support groups that stood to benefit from the court’s decision."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html
January 2011: 'Justice Antonin Scalia proposed to resolve the case based on what he called “the ‘go away’ principle of our jurisprudence.”'http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/us/19scotus.html
January 2011: 'That led to a long back-and-forth among Frederick, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia said he thought it was "ridiculous" to hold companies to standards of what irrational investors might find important.'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011100591.html
June 2010: "But in a flurry of separate opinions that accompanied the decision, at least five members of the court made clear that such claims may not succeed. And Justice Antonin Scalia said there was no First Amendment protection at all for the challengers."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062406833.html
June 2010: '"The Court's implication that where electronic privacy is concerned we should decide less than we otherwise would . . . or that we should hedge our bets by concocting case-specific standards or issuing opaque opinions is in my view indefensible," Scalia wrote.'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061705928.html
May 2010: "The court ruled unanimously that a group of more than 6,000 African Americans may sue the city of Chicago on their claim that the way the city used a written application test kept them from being hired as firefighters. Justice Antonin Scalia said the city opened itself to liability each time it used the test results to hire a class of firefighters over a six-year period and rejected Chicago's assertion that the applicants waited too long to sue."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052401606.html
March 2010: 'Justice Antonin Scalia, a sharp critic of using the due-process clause in the past, blasted Gura. "What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it's also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence," he said. "Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it's wrong, I have -- even I have acquiesced in it?"'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html
February 2010: "The court ruled unanimously that Maryland could use an imprisoned child molester's statement -- given voluntarily 2 1/2 years after police first approached him -- to convict him on additional charges that he abused his son. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that an initial request for an attorney does not mean that police can never reinitiate questioning, provided that the person has been released from custody in the meantime."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022402989.html
October 2009: 'In February, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that federal prosecutors had developed an unseemly crush on a particularly vague law, one that had “been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.”'http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13bar.html
June 2009: 'Writing for a 5-to-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the attorney general had not been engaged in the broad “visitorial powers” reserved by the federal government, in which the government acts like a supervisor with free access to bank records on demand. The court, he wrote, has always understood that visitorial powers are “quite separate” from the power to enforce the law, and the attorney general was acting in the role of “sovereign-as-law-enforcer” in seeking the information.'http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30bizcourt.html
June 2009: "Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html
April 2009: 'Justice Scalia added that the looming First Amendment question in the background “will be determined soon enough, perhaps in this very case.”'http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/29scotus.html
July 2008: 'But there are signs that some justices on the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the American version of the exclusionary rule. Writing for the majority two years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia said that at least some unconstitutional conduct ought not require “resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt.”'http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html
June 2008: 'Justice Antonin Scalia, on the other hand, said the Constitution had largely shut down the discussion. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “gun violence is a serious problem.” But, he went on, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”'http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html
June 2008: '"Domestic violence is an intolerable offense that legislatures may choose to combat through many means," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. "But for that serious crime, as for others, abridging the constitutional rights of criminal defendants is not in the State's arsenal."'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062502614.html
June 2008: 'Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far by making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.'http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html
May 2008: "Fischhoff and others worry about collateral damage: If minors aren't capable of fully matured reasoning, will that argument be used to deny girls the ability to purchase the morning-after pill or obtain an abortion without parental consent? The abortion issue has already been raised by Justice Antonin Scalia, one of four justices to dissent in Roper. Scalia took the American Psychological Association to task for filing a brief opposing the juvenile death penalty, when it had argued in an earlier case that young people were mature enough to get an abortion without parental agreement."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050203365.html
May 2008: "The law in question arose from a sensible, constitutionally acceptable approach by Congress to correct faults that the high court found in an earlier child-pornography law, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/19cnd-scotus.html
March 2008: 'the Supreme Court considered whether that decision violated Edwards's right under the Sixth Amendment to represent himself at his trial...."Give it a try," Scalia said. "The person wants to represent himself. It's his constitutional right. If, indeed, it turns out that this is turning into a sham, fine, bring in a lawyer to represent him."'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602902.html
March 2008: "A couple of years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in a Supreme Court death penalty decision, took stock of the American criminal justice system and pronounced himself satisfied. The rate at which innocent people are convicted of felonies is, he said, less than three-hundredths of 1 percent — .027 percent, to be exact."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/25bar.html
March 2008: 'In the dissenting opinion, Justices Thomas and Scalia said that because it was not clear that the jurors were struck on the basis of race, there was no reason for the court to “second guess” the judge.'http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/washington/20scotus.html
February 2008: 'The Supreme Court yesterday protected the makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm.....That law, Scalia noted, was passed in response to the "thousands of tort claims" resulting from the problems caused by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device. It set up a detailed federal regime for the FDA to test medical devices and precluded states from imposing "any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter."'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001140.html
February 2008: "Just two years ago, the Supreme Court, in a decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that depriving a defendant of the lawyer of his choice was such a fundamental violation of the Sixth Amendment that the conviction must be reversed whether or not the defendant would have done better with a different lawyer."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26bar.html
February 2008: '"I agree with you entirely that it would make sense to provide a cause of action for retaliation, but we don't write statutes," Scalia said. "We read them. And there's nothing in this statute that says that."'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022301915.html
February 2008: 'But Guerra, Gomez-Perez's lawyer, faced skeptical questioning from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia after saying the "plain language" of the law included retaliation.'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901564.html
January 2008: 'Justice Antonin Scalia strenuously disagreed, saying the process "could take years," while executions are put on hold. He also said a comparative analysis is unnecessary.'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010700618.html
January 2008: '“Party conventions, with their attendant ‘smoke-filled rooms’ and domination by party leaders, have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, in a decision that provided ample reminders that judges are politicians as well as somber, black-robed jurists.'http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/washington/16cnd-scotus.html
October 2007: Justice Scalia objected that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Kentucky case “does not alter the application of normal rules of procedure, including those related to timeliness.” He said the appeals court appeared to be operating on the “mistaken premise” that every lethal injection challenge now merited a stay.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/washington/19scotus.html
October 2007: Three justices dissented. Justices Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter said under the ordinary meaning of the word 'use,' the statute outlaws the use of a gun as a weapon – not for barter.http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p03s01-usju.html
October 2007: “The office was designed to insulate against any need to be an advocate,” said Mr. Kmiec, now a conservative scholar at Pepperdine University law school. But at times in recent years, Mr. Kmiec said, the office, headed by William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia before they served on the Supreme Court, “lost its ability to say no.”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html
August 2007: A few minutes later, Justice Antonin Scalia, an anchor on the court's conservative wing, said he found nothing in his research to support Bush's assertion of unchecked authority to wage the war on terror. 'It doesn't say you can do whatever it takes to win the war,' he said.http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0815/p01s08-usju.html
February 2007: Also last term, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion in a death-penalty case for the sole purpose of excoriating Justice David Souter—who had written in a dissent in a technical case about the Kansas capital-sentencing scheme—and made mention of exonerated innocents. Justice Scalia's opinion was a full-bore attack on the whole notion of the innocent exonerees 'paraded by various professors.' He claimed, in effect, that even if those exonerated were not guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, they were still far from 'innocent.'http://www.slate.com/id/2159373/
March 2005: Throughout the morning it becomes increasingly clear that Scalia is the only member of the court who is being truly honest. His position: Sure, the display is religious and not secular. Let's put up some crosses, too, and have a revival meeting. In this sense, Scalia represents the vast majority of the protesters outside. They are not venerating the historical secular influence of the commandments, whatever the lawyers inside the courthouse may say. They just really like God.http://www.slate.com/id/2114258/
January 2006: In dissent, Scalia argued that Ashcroft had acted well within his legal powers. 'If the term legitimate medical purpose has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death,' Scalia wrote.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700435.html
April 2005: Several justices, most prominently Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, favor drawing on such sources for nonbinding input, arguing that it improves the court's decisions and helps foreign courts establish their own legitimacy. Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia oppose the use of foreign law, arguing that the Supreme Court is competent only to rule on the U.S. Constitution and statutes.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601350.html
Role Name Type Last Updated Advised by (past or present) Federalist Society, The (for Law and Public Policy Studies) Organization Aug 1, 2005 Student/Trainee (past or present) Georgetown University Organization Dec 21, 2005 Student/Trainee (past or present) Harvard University Organization Dec 21, 2005 Organization Head/Leader (past or present) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Organization Oct 4, 2007 Member of (past or present) US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Organization Employee/Freelancer/Contractor (past or present) University of Chicago Organization Dec 21, 2005 Employee/Freelancer/Contractor (past or present) University of Virginia (UVA) Organization Dec 21, 2005 Supervisor of (past or present) Paul D. Clement Esq., MS Person Apr 9, 2007 Supervisor of (past or present) Prof. John Fitzgerald Duffy Esq. Person May 7, 2008 Supervisor of (past or present) Edward M. Whelan III, Esq. Person Jan 29, 2011 Friend (past or present) Prof. John C. Yoo Esq. Person Dec 26, 2005
Articles and Resources
Date Fairness.com Resource Read it at: Mar 19, 2012 At Heart of Health Law Clash, a 1942 Case of a Farmer’s Wheat
QUOTE: Mr. Filburn sued to overturn a 1938 federal law that told him how much wheat he could grow on his family farm and made him pay a penalty for every extra bushel. The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power.
New York Times Feb 21, 2012 Justices Take Up Race as a Factor in College Entry
QUOTE: In a 2003 decision that the majority said it expected would last for 25 years, the Supreme Court allowed public colleges and universities to take account of race in admission decisions...By agreeing to hear a major case involving race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas, the court thrust affirmative action back into the public and political discourse after years in which it had mostly faded from view.
New York Times Jan 23, 2012 Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights
QUOTE: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously that the police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System tracking device on a suspect’s car and monitored its movements for 28 days. A set of overlapping opinions in the case collectively suggested that a majority of the justices are prepared to apply broad privacy principles to bring the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches into the digital age...
New York Times Jun 27, 2011 Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children
QUOTE: Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for five justices in the majority in the video games decision, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08-1448, said video games were subject to full First Amendment protection. “Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium...
New York Times Jun 18, 2011 Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics
QUOTE: The publicity-shy friend turned out to be Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate magnate and a major contributor to conservative causes. Mr. Crow stepped in to finance the multimillion-dollar purchase and restoration of the cannery, featuring a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point that has become a pet project of Justice Thomas’s. The project throws a spotlight on an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship that appears to be markedly different from those of other justices on the nation’s highest court.
New York Times Jan 18, 2011 In Knotty State Secrets Case, Justices Ponder Telling Litigants to ‘Go Away’
QUOTE: The contractors sued, asking to keep the money and seeking $1.2 billion more. They said their work had been frustrated by the government’s failure to share classified technology. The government disputed that, but would not explain why, invoking the state secrets privilege.
New York Times Jan 11, 2011 Court weighs disclosures to stockholders
QUOTE: Stockholders said Matrixx had been warned about such a possibility since 1999, but even after lawsuits were filed the company had issued statements saying such allegations were "completely unfounded and misleading."...Matrixx said there was no attempt to deceive investors. The number of complaints about the product was "statistically insignificant"....
Washington Post Jun 28, 2010 Justices Rule Against Group That Excludes Gay Students
QUOTE: A public law school did not violate the First Amendment by withdrawing recognition from a Christian student group that excluded gay students, the Supreme Court ruled...
New York Times Jun 25, 2010 Justices say petition signers should not expect their names to be kept secret
QUOTE: Those who sign referendum petitions should generally not expect to keep their names secret, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting the argument of an anti-gay-rights group that disclosure would violate their First Amendment protection of political expression.
Washington Post Jun 24, 2010 Justices Limit Use of ‘Honest Services’ Law Against Fraud
QUOTE: The justices were unanimous in calling a broad interpretation of the law, which makes it a crime “to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,” unconstitutionally vague.
New York Times Jun 18, 2010 Supreme Court rules on employer monitoring of cellphone, computer conversations
QUOTE: A hesitant Supreme Court waded cautiously into a question that arises daily in workplaces and offices across the country: whether employers have the right to look over the shoulders of workers who use company computers and cellphones for personal communication. In the first ruling of its kind, the justices said they do, as long as there is a "legitimate work-related purpose" to monitor them.
Washington Post May 25, 2010 Justices say employers may not use discriminatory testing practices
QUOTE: Employers who use tests that have the effect of ruling out disproportionate numbers of women and minorities may be sued each time they use the results to hire, the Supreme Court ruled...
Washington Post May 18, 2010 Supreme Court restricts life without parole for juveniles
QUOTE: Juveniles may not be sentenced to life in prison without parole for any crime short of homicide, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, expanding its command that young offenders must be treated differently from adults even for heinous crimes.
Washington Post May 17, 2010 Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Is Upheld
QUOTE: In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences. The 7-to-2 decision touched off a heated debate among the justices on a question that has lately engaged the Tea Party movement and opponents of the new health care law: What limits does the Constitution impose on Congress’s power to legislate on matters not specifically delegated to it in Article I?
New York Times Mar 03, 2010 Supreme Court does more wrangling with gun laws
QUOTE: The same members of the Supreme Court who ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a firearm seemed ready Tuesday to ensure that state and local gun-control laws do not interfere with it. But a majority also indicated that the states may have "broader interests" in restricting gun ownership than the federal government.
Washington Post Feb 25, 2010 Supreme Court rules that request for lawyer in questioning has expiration
QUOTE: A suspect's request that a lawyer be present before submitting to police questioning does not last forever, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. In fact, 14 days is long enough for police to wait before taking the alleged perpetrator into custody again and attempting another interrogation.
Washington Post Oct 12, 2009 A Question of When Dishonesty Becomes Criminal (Sidebar)
QUOTE: Critics of the honest services law say it has two essential flaws. It allows federal prosecutors vast discretion “to go after people they don’t like or people they disagree with politically,” said Julie Rose O’Sullivan... The second problem, said George D. Brown... is that prosecutions of state officials under the federal law may violate fundamental principles of federalism.
Oct 01, 2009 Supreme Court decision may open up other gun laws to challenges
QUOTE: The Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago's handgun ban could open the door to similar lawsuits in cities and states across the nation.
Los Angeles Times Jul 15, 2009 Lab Analyst Decision Complicates Prosecutions: High Court Requires Scientists to Testify
QUOTE: Legal experts and prosecutors are concerned about the results of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires lab analysts to be in court to testify about their tests.
Washington Post Jul 06, 2009 In Two States, a Lower Bar for Conviction (Sidebar)
QUOTE: ...Oregon is one of only two states that does not require juries to reach unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Like Louisiana, it allows convictions by a vote of 10-to-2. ...defense lawyers say the rule was designed to make obtaining convictions easier.
New York Times
- Arts & Humanities
- Businesses & Organizations
- Computers & Information Technology
- Family & Friends & Interpersonal
- Government & Politics / History
- Health & Medicine
- Law & Justice
- Media & Journalism
- Personal Finance & Career
- Philosophy & Religion
- Recreation & Entertainment
- Science & Technology
- Social Sciences & Groups
- Arctic / Antarctic / Greenland
- Central America / Caribbean
- Eurasia / Central Asia
- Middle East
- North America
- Oceania / AustralAsia
- South America
- About Fairness.com
- Contact Us
- Conditions of Service
- Fair Use Notice
- Advisory Board
Not a current user? Sign up!