Scalito Kisses Off The Internet

Prof. Marcus noted today that Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supremes is blaming the media for not reporting on legal issues in a manner of which he approves, to wit…

Scalia expressed disdain for the news media and the general reading public and suggested that together they condone inaccurate portrayals of federal judges and courts. "The press is never going to report judicial opinions accurately," he said.

"They're just going to report, who is the plaintiff? Was that a nice little old lady? And who is the defendant? Was this, you know, some scuzzy guy? And who won? Was it the good guy that won or the bad guy?"

[He] complained that people understand the courts through a news media that typically oversimplifies and sensationalizes. He said people's ability to amplify their comments globally about judges and their opinions on the Internet takes a toll on the judiciary.

"This is not just like somebody handing out a leaflet in the past, where a small number of people can see this," he said. "This is available to the world. ... It changes what it means to be a judge. It certainly changes the attractiveness of a judicial career."

Aww, let’s shed a tear or two for Scalia and the rest of the Gang of Nine because of that darned Internet (and also, now and always, pray that Anthony Kennedy remains with us for a good while yet), ignoring the fact that such frequently shallow reporting is typical of every other issue also.

I’m bringing this up partly because I wanted to point out another moment with Scalia last week when he said that the Constitution is silent on abortion and race in school.

I know it wouldn’t do any good to point out to Scalia that our laws and courts are kind of like an overcoat that you would wear that changes and adapts as your body type changes. If your body changes for whatever reason, then maybe you might alter your coat accordingly.

(Actually, I didn’t think of this – I’m pretty sure Spencer Tracy portraying the Clarence Darrow character in “Inherit The Wind” used this analogy…if not, he easily could have.)

We all know Scalia doesn’t believe in a right to privacy – if he did, he’d understand the importance of respecting Roe v. Wade, among other rulings regarding behavior that I believe should not be regulated. Well, in the CNN story, it notes that…

Scalia, who marked his 20th anniversary on the court last month, generally finds himself taking the opposite position to the ACLU. Most notably, he wrote a majority 5-4 opinion last term giving police more leeway to enter private homes.

Well, here is a link to a Wikipedia article regarding the fourth amendment of the Constitution protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure. I don’t see any language here that states that this right should be modified to allow the police to have greater access to our homes.

It sounds to me a bit like Scalia is projecting his ideas of what settled law SHOULD be into his interpretation of the Constitution. But then again, conservatives are usually two faced in these matters when the end result is not of their liking, so why should now be any different?