The Liberal Face of Justice Scalia
A more nuanced picture of Justice Antonin Scalia’s 30-year stint on the nation’s highest court tells a tale that complicates the conservative-mouthpiece narrative.
Antonin Scalia, a justice nicknamed "Nino", is being portrayed as one of the Supreme Court’s staunchest conservative voices. Indeed he was: Justice Scalia authored a 5-4 opinion in 2008 declaring that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms. He was a dependably acerbic voice against gay rights, warning presciently in cases from 2003 and 2013 that the court was headed inexorably toward a ruling that would make same-sex marriage a constitutional right. He believed that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a right to abortion, was wrongly decided. He embraced capital punishment and took a skeptical view of the “separation of church and state,” regarding the division as phony and ungrounded in the constitutional text. And most notoriously, he supplied one of the five votes that made George W. Bush the nation’s 43rd president in the explosive case Bush v. Gore. (When people would complain about this in later years, he famously told them to “get over it.”)
But a more nuanced picture of Justice Scalia’s 30-year stint on the nation’s highest court tells a tale that complicates the conservative-mouthpiece narrative that has led to some very unsavory cheering of his demise on Twitter. For all of his apparent advocacy of far-right positions, Justice Scalia has written opinions that liberals have reason to cheer. And more importantly, his intellectual temperament reflects an openness to ideas that few ideological liberals seem to have these days.
Nino’s liberal jurisprudence
Perhaps the most notable case in which Justice Scalia voted contrary to his personal ideology was Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 ruling that struck down a law banning the burning of the American flag. Scalia was no flag-burner himself, of course, and he admitted to reviling people who desecrated this symbol of the American republic. But he refused to join either of the two dissents and voted with the Court’s liberal justices to hold that the First Amendment protects critics of the government who choose to express their disdain for the country by setting its flag aflame.
While Justice Scalia’s originalism made him an unswerving vote to uphold death-penalty laws (he liked to point out that the Constitution itself refers to capital punishment, so the Eighth Amendment cannot be understood to ban it), he voted time and time again on the side of criminal defendants. His vehicle for coming to their rescue was the Sixth Amendment, one of the more obscure harbors in the Bill of Rights that became more robust as a result of Justice Scalia's advocacy. He pushed his fellow justices to take more seriously the guarantee of a jury trial and especially the so-called “Confrontation Clause,” a provision that requires criminal defendants to be faced (in person) by their accusers. A year ago, Justice Scalia took his frequent ally Justice Samuel Alito to task for “shoveling ... fresh dirt upon the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation so recently rescued from the grave” in a decision Scalia had written in 2004.
One of the questions that will remain a mystery is how Justice Scalia would have voted in one of this term’s biggest cases: a challenge to the power of public-sector unions to charge non-members “agency fees” to facilitate collective bargaining. Justice Alito has been itching for years to abandon a 1970s-era Supreme Court precedent that permitted unions to charge non-members these fees for bargaining for their wages and benefits (but not for political advocacy). In the oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association last month, Justice Scalia seemed to be edging toward Alito’s position that non-members have a right not to subsidize union speech. But in a previous ruling from 1991, he wrote that “where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services it may permit the union to demand reimbursement from ... nonunion members of the union’s own bargaining unit.” Justice Scalia was no ideological friend of organized labor, but the logic of his past rulings could conceivably have led him to be the unions’ savior this spring.
Nino’s penchant for engaging with rival views
The stereotypical conservative, in the eyes of liberals, is stuffy and closed-minded, set in his ways and allergic to ideas that differ from his. This caricature cannot be ascribed to Justice Scalia. In contrast to most of his brethren, who surround themselves with law clerks with roughly similar views about the law and politics, Justice Scalia went out of his way most years to hire one clerk who thought quite differently from him. The liberal clerk would help him wrestle with the opposing side of a case to enable him to fashion more deeply reasoned, more persuasive opinions.
David Axelrod, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, tells a remarkable story about how willing Justice Scalia was to entertain opposing viewpoints. When Obama was mulling over a successor for David Souter, who retired in 2009, Scalia offered some surprising advice: “'Let me put a finer point on it,' the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. 'I hope he sends us Elena Kagan.'” Sonia Sotomayor got the nod from Obama that year, but when another seat opened up, he did indeed choose Elena Kagan, an Obama solicitor general and strong liberal voice. Axelrod writes, “I was surprised that a member of the court would so bluntly propose a nominee, and intrigued that it was Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean who was appointed solicitor general by Obama to represent the government before the Supreme Court. Though she had worked on policy in the Clinton administration and had a reputation for pragmatism, Kagan plainly would be a liberal in the context of the court. ... Each was a graduate of Harvard Law School and had taught at the University of Chicago Law School, though in different eras. They were of different generations, he the son of an Italian immigrant, she a Jew from New York City's left-leaning West Side. But they shared an intellectual rigor and a robust sense of humor. And if Scalia could not have a philosophical ally in the next court appointee, he had hoped, at least, for one with the heft to give him a good, honest fight.”
This integrity and pugnacious spirit is captured poignantly by another liberal justice, the redoubtable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his ideological opponent and “best buddy”:
"Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: 'We are different; we are one,' different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve.
From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation.
Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots — the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh."
The bottom line
Just as Justice Scalia sought out great legal minds to argue with him and sharpen his arguments, it behooves Americans who disagreed with him vehemently on any number of issues to learn from his example. Democracy is not well conducted by citizens who demonize their political opponents and feed their minds exclusively with ideas they already have by consulting news sources, blogs, and talk shows that massage preconceived views. Much better, the example of Justice Scalia shows, to listen, argue, and engage while respecting your interlocutor.
Steven V. Mazie is Professor of Political Studies at Bard High School Early College-Manhattan and Supreme Court correspondent for The Economist. He holds an A.B. in Government from Harvard College and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan. He is author, most recently, of American Justice 2015: The Dramatic Tenth Term of the Roberts Court.
Image credit: shutterstock.com
Follow Steven Mazie on Twitter: @stevenmazie
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
Best case: redrawing borders leads to peace, prosperity and EU membership. But there's also a worst case
- The Yugoslav Wars started in 1991, but never really ended
- Kosovo and Serbia are still enemies, and they're getting worse
- A proposed land swap could create peace - or reignite the conflict
The death of Old Yugoslavia
Image: public domain
United Yugoslavia on a CIA map from 1990.
Wars are harder to finish than to start. Take for instance the Yugoslav Wars, which raged through most of the 1990s.
The first shot was fired at 2.30 pm on June 27th, 1991, when an officer in the Yugoslav People's Army took aim at Slovenian separatists. When the YPA retreated on July 7th, Slovenia was the first of Yugoslavia's republics to have won its independence.
After the wars
Image: Ijanderson977, CC BY-SA 3.0 / Wikimedia Commons
Map of former Yugoslavia in 2008, when Kosovo declared its independence. The geopolitical situation remains the same today.
The Ten-Day War cost less than 100 casualties. The other wars – in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo (1) – lasted much longer and were a lot bloodier. By early 1999, when NATO had forced Serbia to concede defeat in Kosovo, close to 140,000 people had been killed and four million civilians displaced.
So when was the last shot fired? Perhaps it wasn't: it's debatable whether the Yugoslav Wars are actually over. That's because Kosovo is a special case. Although inhabited by an overwhelming ethnic-Albanian majority, Serbians are historically very attached to it. More importantly, from a legalistic point of view: Kosovo was never a separate republic within Yugoslavia but rather a (nominally) autonomous province within Serbia.
Kosovo divides the world
Image: public domain
In red: states that recognise the independence of Kosovo (most EU member states – with the notable exceptions of Spain, Greece, Romania and Slovakia; and the U.S., Japan, Turkey and Egypt, among many others). In blue: states that recognise Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo (most notably Russia and China, but also other major countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Iran).
The government of Serbia has made its peace and established diplomatic relations with all other former Yugoslav countries, but not with Kosovo. In Serbian eyes, Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2008 was a unilateral and therefore legally invalid change of state borders. Belgrade officially still considers Kosovo a 'renegade province', and it actually has a lot of international support for that position (2).
The irony is that on the longer term, both Kosovo and Serbia want the same thing: EU membership. Ironically, that wish could lead to Yugoslav reunification some years down the road – within the EU. Slovenia and Croatia have already joined, and all other ex-Yugoslav states would like to follow their example. Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia have already submitted an official application. The EU considers Bosnia and Kosovo 'potential candidates'.
Kosovo is the main stumbling block on Serbia's road to EU membership. Even after the end of hostilities, skirmishes continued, between the ethnically Albanian majority and the ethnically Serbian minority within Kosovo, and vice versa in Serbian territories directly adjacent. Tensions are dormant at best. A renewed outbreak of armed conflict is not unthinkable.
Land for peace?
Mitrovica isn't the only area majority-Serb area in Kosovo, but the others are enclaved and fear being abandoned in a land swap.
In fact, relations between Kosovo and Serbia have deteriorated spectacularly in the past few months. At the end of November, Kosovo was refused membership of Interpol, mainly on the insistence of Serbia. In retaliation, Kosovo imposed a 100% tariff on all imports from Serbia. After which Serbia's prime minister Ana Brnabic refused to exclude her country's "option" to intervene militarily in Kosovo. Upon which Kosovo's government decided to start setting up its own army – despite its prohibition to do so as one of the conditions of its continued NATO-protected independence.
The protracted death of Yugoslavia will be over only when this conflict is finally resolved. The best way to do that, politicians on both sides have suggested, is for the borders reflect the ethnic makeup of the frontier between Kosovo and Serbia.
The biggest and most obvious pieces of the puzzle are the Serbian-majority district of Mitrovica in northern Kosovo, and the Albanian-majority Presevo Valley, in southwestern Serbia. That land swap was suggested previous summer by Hashim Thaci and Aleksandar Vucic, presidents of Kosovo and Serbia respectively. Best-case scenario: that would eliminate the main obstacle to mutual recognition, joint EU membership and future prosperity.
If others can do it...
Image: Ruland Kolen
Belgium and the Netherlands recently adjusted out their common border to conform to the straightened Meuse River.
Sceptics and not a few locals warn that there also is a worst-case scenario: the swap could rekindle animosities and restart the war. A deal along those lines would almost certainly exclude six Serbian-majority municipalities enclaved deep within Kosovo. While Serbian Mitrovica, which borders Serbia proper, is home to some 40,000 inhabitants, those enclaves represent a further 80,000 ethnic Serbs – who fear being totally abandoned in a land swap, and eventually forced out of their homes.
Western powers, which sponsored Kosovar independence, are divided over the plan. U.S. officials back the idea, as do some within the EU. But the Germans are against – they are concerned about the plan's potential to fire up regional tensions rather than eliminate them.
In principle, countries consider their borders inviolate and unchanging, but land swaps are not unheard of. Quite recently, Belgium and the Netherlands exchanged territories so their joint border would again match up with the straightened course of the Meuse river (3). But those bits of land were tiny, and uninhabited. And as the past has amply shown, borders carry a lot more weight in the Balkans.
The controversy around the Torah codes gets a new life.
- Mathematicians claim to see a predictive pattern in the ancient Torah texts.
- The code is revealed by a method found with special computer software.
- Some events described by reading the code took place after the code was written.
- Facebook and Google began as companies with supposedly noble purposes.
- Creating a more connected world and indexing the world's information: what could be better than that?
- But pressure to return value to shareholders came at the expense of their own users.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.