Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Justice Scalia's Views About the Relation Between Law and Politics

By Mike Dorf


Making the rounds to promote his new book, Justice Scalia recently sat for a very substantive interview with Chris Wallace.  Much of the discussion about that interview has focused on what Justice Scalia said in defense of his dissent in the Arizona immigration case, including a not-too-subtle put-down of Judge Posner (who had previously criticized the dissent).  A lot of what Justice Scalia said was the sort of thing that any Justice would have said in similar circumstances.  But one exchange stood out to me as either disingenuous or reflective of a serious lack of self-awareness.  Here it is:

WALLACE: Finley Peter Dunne, the famous Chicago humorist once wrote, "The Supreme Court follows the election returns." How political is the court?
SCALIA: I don't think the court is political at all. People say that because at least in the recent couple of years - since John Paul Stevens and David Souter had left the court, the break out is often five to four, with five --
WALLACE: Republican appointed judges.
SCALIA: -- and four Democrats on the other side. That doesn't show they are voting politics. It shows that they had been selected because of their judicial philosophy. The Republicans have been looking for originalist and textualist and restrained judges for 50 years. And the Democrats have been looking for the opposite, for people who believe in Roe versus Wade.
Why should it be a surprise that after, you know, assiduously trying to get people with these philosophies, they end up with these philosophies?
Justice Scalia is making two points here, and they're both false.  The first point is that the divisions that account for ideological lineups on the Supreme Court are based in differing views about interpretive methodology.  But both casual observation and econometric regressions confirm that the divisions on the Court closely track political divisions.  E.g., the Court's conservatives vote for conservative outcomes, and the Court's liberals vote for liberal outcomes in all of the following cases: abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, church-state separation, death penalty, gay rights, gun rights, and states' rights.  (I could expand the list if I were to include statutory cases involving environmental protection, labor, and other topics.)  What is Justice Scalia's account of this remarkable coincidence that methodological differences between originalism/textualism and purposivism produce divisions that just about exactly track political divisions?

His second point suggests an answer to that question but it too is plainly wrong.  Justice Scalia suggests that whereas Republicans have been appointing "restrained" Justices, "Democrats have been looking for the opposite," i.e., judicial activists.  But this is wrong because the breakdown between conservatives and liberals has nothing to do with the restrained/activist dichotomy.  Consider the eight subjects I listed.  On four of these--abortion, church-state separation, the death penalty, and gay rights--liberal Justices vote to strike down the outputs of elected bodies, while conservatives want to defer to the democratic process.  But on the other four--affirmative action, campaign finance, gun rights, and states' rights--it's the conservatives who want to strike laws down and the liberals who want to uphold them.  And I don't think my list exhibits much of a selection bias one way or the other.  These are the most contentious, most divisive issues on the Court, and the divisions look much more political than methodological.  Judicial restraint and judicial activism simply have nothing to do with it.

Perhaps there is an underlying correlation between methodology and politics?  Is it possible, in other words, that the reason why Republicans pick originalists is that originalism leads to politically conservative results, while Democrats pick dynamic purposivists because that method leads to politically liberal results?  I think there is a little something to this hypothesis.  Originalism, by its nature, is backward-looking, and thus conservative or even reactionary, in the literal sense.  But given the generality of the constitutional text, all interpretive methods are sufficiently manipulable to produce a wide range of answers when called upon to do so.  In their day, Hugo Black was a liberal originalist and Felix Frankfurter was a conservative purposivist.

This is not to say that judging is all politics.  To avoid cognitive dissonance, judges and Justices tell themselves (and believe) that they are not simply channeling politics--and from time to time that will be true.  Thus, CJ Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kagan will get enormous mileage from their Obamacare votes, even as the overall pattern even in that case was quite ideological.  Likewise, Justice Scalia seems to get a kick out of his own constitutionally liberal streak in Confrontation Clause cases, even as he professes to be a law-and-order conservative.  For my money, I think Chris Eisgruber had it about right in saying (in his book, The Next Justice) that Justice Scalia, on policy grounds, is not so much of a law-and-order conservative in this area, but I won't rely on that hypothesis.  Instead, I'll note simply that the fact that Justices occasionally surprise us by deviating from the ideological script hardly shows that political ideology isn't doing most of the heavy lifting.

15 comments:

Paul Scott said...

Glad to see you retreating from your 30% ;)

Joe said...

Scalia is a very smart guy but it's tedious when he firmly sets forth such tropes. One uncomfortable moment is when Brian Lamb threw a softball regarding how best to teach the Constitution to high school students. His idea was to have them read the Federalist Papers, apparently the whole thing.

Reading college level material (excerpts aside) is not really the best approach here. Me personally, I would have them read and discuss the document, especially its text and history, making clear that it is a compromise that many reasonably have different opinions about.

This does not quite work with Scalia since everything seems so obvious to him at times.

DHMC said...

I thought that the greatest tell in Wallace’s Scalia interview was the following passage:

WALLACE: But I mean, does it go through your mind, if I retire, I'd like to see - since you talk about Republicans appointing one kind of justice and Democrats another, that you would want somebody who would adhere to your view, as in your book "Reading Law"?

SCALIA: No, of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I've tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I shouldn't have to tell you that. Unless you think I'm a fool.

With those words, Scalia has admitted what his critics have long charged – that rather than being some kind of originalist/purist in his reading of the Constitution and the law, he has an activist legal/political agenda. If he was merely interpreting the law, then he would not characterize his time on the bench as something he has “tried to do.” Can we please stop pretending that he is anything than what he is, an activist gearing his decisions to political outcomes?

Sam Rickless said...

"But given the generality of the constitutional text, all interpretive methods are sufficiently manipulable to produce a wide range of answers when called upon to do so."

Some originalists think (wrongly, to my mind) that generality does not always entail manipulability. Using Dworkin's (helpful) language, expectation originalists think that general clauses should be understood by looking at how their framers expected them to be applied in particular cases. It is expectation originalism, as opposed to semantic originalism (which looks at meaning, rather than particular intentions), that leads to conservative or reactionary outcomes, and explains much of Justice Scalia's own jurisprudence, despite his official anti-expectationist, pro-semanticist stance.

toryburchshoesgoods said...

then he would not characterize his time on the bench as something he has “tried to do.” Can we please stop pretending that he is anything than what he is, an activist gearing his decisions to political outcomes? Windows 7 professional activation Key
Windows 7 professional Key
Windows 7 ultimate Activation Key
Buy Windows 7 Key

jet said...

Some essential expenses and advantages may not be from http://www.cellphone4us.com/sitemap.xml
agreeable to quantitative statistic. For example, some of the pro-gun briefs in Heller suggested that extensive gun possession is a protect against despotism because it preserves the choice of efficient rebel (thereby detering the would-be despot). Although some annecdotal proof was introduced in assistance (no despotism has ever permitted extensive personal gun ownership), it's not obvious how the advantage to http://www.mmomesos.com/ community (if any) from this impact could be quantified.

beeple Bill said...

Routine initialized fun pet baby toys dog carrier results in does sound to seize the dog interest. Some gadgets furthermore adobe flash lighting fixtures utilizing virtually every shift your new puppy will make which make it think it is usually some other residing thing and it's trying to play with the help of the dog.

Among posh playthings there can be degrees connected with quality dog leashes, the top being the indestructible squeaky toy. These kinds of baby toys usually are remarkably strong toys and games and are not planning to damages small dog collars. They usually are used in much time hours. They really want end exchanged immediately. They could be high-priced versus its own lagging and weaker variations small dog carriers nevertheless

Zirong Zhang said...

While i was atsell d3 gold university within the late 1980s, there was a tiny movements not to buy Domino's Lasagna mainly because inventor Ben Monaghan contributed to anti-choice leads to. However there were simplyDiablo 3 gold no evident url to this company.

caton yesiondre said...

All those of you who're even now coming windows 7 home premium product key to grips using the impending demise of Google Reader, one example is, will appreciate the truth that the Bing News app windows 7 professional product key now supports RSS feeds and offline reading through.

Timbaland said...

And what happens when we get more? We aren’t satisfied, because ro zeny there are new ads for new iPods, for new laptops, for new iPhones, for new cars, for new clothes. We have to have those. It’s impossible to satisfy that hunger for more, because our ragnarok online zeny culture is not satisfied with what we have, but is geared to wanting more. It’s consumerism, and it’s the official religion of the industrialized world.That sounds preachy, so let’s move beyond that: ask yourself how much is enough, how much do you need in order to be satisfied? I submit Ragnarok zeny that the answer is that we already have enough — possibly more than enough.

Timbaland said...

A wealthy matron is so proud of a valuable antique vase that Runes Of Magic Gold she decides to have her bedroom painted the same color as the vase. Several painters try to match the shade, but none comes close enough to satisfy the eccentric woman. Eventually, a painter approaches who is confident ROM Gold he can mix the proper color. The woman is pleased with the result, and the painter becomes famous. Years later, he retires and truns the business over to his son. "Dad," says the son, "there's something I've got to know. How did you get those Runes Of Magic Gold walls to match the vase so perfectly?"

Timbaland said...

A wealthy matron is so proud of a valuable antique vase that Runes Of Magic Gold she decides to have her bedroom painted the same color as the vase. Several painters try to match the shade, but none comes close enough to satisfy the eccentric woman. Eventually, a painter approaches who is confident ROM Gold he can mix the proper color. The woman is pleased with the result, and the painter becomes famous. Years later, he retires and truns the business over to his son. "Dad," says the son, "there's something I've got to know. How did you get those Runes Of Magic Gold walls to match the vase so perfectly?"

Qiong Zhang said...

Good article is brought
cheapest phones to share,

Alberta Smith said...

We have already slipped my phone a couple of times and yes it protected my display!!! Dependable and stylish as well as fantastic! My spouse and i received that inside the email fast Samsung case quickly and you are unable to overcome the purchase price!

wei wusuo said...

The balance of blood vessels decides your lifestyle and loss of life.2. Activity Speed: 24% movement rate is necessary, whether you are operating the map or eliminating the creatures.3. All Level of resistance and Armor: the specifications to All Level of resistance and Armour in hardcore method is tighter than in regular method. There is no process for your products to get red. To be said exactly, because you passed away.

Buy WOW Gold  RS Gold  Buy Diablo 3 Gold