Associate Justice Antonin Scalia publicly lashed out at Fordham Law Professor Professor Joel Reidenberg who having his students compile a 15-page dossier on his private life. For civil libertarians, Scalia’s objections to a lack of privacy is analogous to Rep. Jane Harman’s outrage over being intercepted as part of the NSA warrantless program that she helped approve.
The controversy was triggered last January when Scalia spoke to the Institute of American and Talmudic Law’s midwinter conference on privacy issues. Scalia mocked privacy arguments, saying: “Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly.”
It was so silly that Reidenberg decided to assign his students in his Information Privacy Law class to determine about much data they could find on Scalia in the public domain.
Reidenberg noted: “Justice Scalia said he doesn’t care what people find out about him on the Internet. So I challenged my class to compile a dossier on him.” It took only four months for the creation of a 15 page report filled with his home address, personal telephone number, favorite movies, favorite foods,his wife’s personal e-mail address, and “photos of his lovely grandchildren.”
Scalia went ballistic, stressing the difference between the question of legal protection and personal responsibility. He made the following statement:
I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.
It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.
Of course, Professor Reidenberg is not the only one accused of “perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment,” here.
For the latest on the story, click here.
Jill,
Please do not take the bait. I have noticed that you have not been posting. I enjoy the open exchange it is fun, although I may disagree with you, I enjoy reading.
One of his last posts described him as having blacked out, waking up in the hospital, being forced to eat phood known as “the cardiac diet”!
—
DW was NOT a cardiac patient, Jill.
He was admitted to the Cardiac Service and given a bland diet while under observation – overnight, only.
GWLSM,
Good to notice that you moved over to the main Blog (Blawg) Tab from the BIO Tab and not to the Latest Column Tab. Welcome.
Old man Judge Scal (scowl) looks like a mafia puppet in that thumbnail photo accompanying this topic thread, especially the way his arms are positioned—sans the active puppet strings.
While many of you make excellent points, the thing to behold here is that Scalia is, above all, a bully. He exploits the law when it is dovetails with his beliefs and shuns it when it trips him up.
I find this hugely amusing.
Dr. Dredd:
To me this was “deeply worried” in his own words. Though not a lawyer by certificate he was a lexiphile at heart:
“The people who hate lawyers would, if their logic was to be extended, repeal both Constitution and Magna Carta and we would be happily returned to serf and Lord where order and certainty was restored to human society.
Too bad there are lawyers indeed! Too bad there is a Law, they argue in courts. Muzzle them, pillory them, slander them!
Or better yet, subvert them, suborn them, co-opt them. There will always be willing dogs to lie at the feet of their masters.
And there will always be polemicists who argue the virtues of Power unchecked.”
Dr. Dredd,
I will speak from my experience and I’m certain others will speak of him as well. D.W. had worked for the Federal? govt. One of his last posts described him as having blacked out, waking up in the hospital, being forced to eat phood known as “the cardiac diet”!
His posts were always deep, thoughtful, unique, well researched, kind-spirited, and intelligent–to name of few of their qualities. He only posted a few times after describing the hospital visit. As he had posted here regularly I assume the worst, but hope for the best.
I think you can google, deeply worried on jonathanturley to find some of his many posts. You won’t be sorry that you did.
Jill
As an occasional reader of this site, can I ask: Who was Deeply Worried?
You don’t get it, Buddha – Bolivia is who ‘we’ ie DW, mespo, JT and
I are!
You can’t change our blog history. We’re bonded together
– forever.
The irony is making me laugh so hard I risk aggravation of my para-sailing injury.
Bob,
“He is evil incarnate.”
I spread that word as fast as I can. 😀
mespo,
Please avoid Bolivia.
Isn’t this reminiscent of Robert Bork filing suit for tripping on a sidewalk in New York – principles are fine as long as they don’t affect my personal life.
“What is good for the goose is good for the gander”. Scalia deserves no more privacy than you or I.
Patty C:
“mespo, DW admired you very much. You were like Redford to his Newman.”
************
Thank you Patty C. I can’t recall a finer compliment. I know he felt the same way about you.
Obama should nominate the professor for the Supreme Court … now that it appears Souter is retiring.
The federal bench is unbalanced:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/03/here-come-de-conservative-judges.html
Cindy,
I do not follow what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that you are for Obama? That is all I could get out of this. Please explain. Thank you.
oh, goody, I so hope they got the details on his relationship to Obama patron Khalid Al Mansour & how they hooked up for the OPEC case, and any relationship he may have to Bill Ayers
Patty,
That’s pretty much it; but you left out the element that makes Scalia worth despising.
By taking a textualist, formalist approach to the document that both Hamilton and Madison agreed was predicated upon the existence and acknowledgment of inalienable rights, Scalia anoints himself as Law itself by disregarding the Hamilton/Madison paradigm and formulating any outcome determination he desires.
He’s evil incarnate.
I’m not sure Pleasant Grove is a good example, although I get your drift. That case, according to the prevailing argument was peculiar to Utah and Mormons, only, as I recall.
The life of a Supreme Court justice usually is, and ought to be, a rather lonely existence. Antonin Scalia treats it as though he were a goodwill ambassador for his Rotary Club, socializing with prominent politicians, regardless of whether they have business pending before the Court, and freely sharing his opinions with favored groups. He appears to relish the publicity, but reacts to the paparazzi like any other spoiled celebrity. While I am not sure that Prof. Reidenberg’s assignment was particularly appropriate, Justice Scalia, given his constitutional views, is the last person who should be raising privacy concerns.
It is often said of Justice Scalia that he does not suffer fools gladly. More accurately, he does not suffer disagreement with his positions gladly, which I suppose makes him a soul mate of Dick Cheney. So strong are his ideological leanings that he is not reluctant to incorporate derogatory dicta into his opinions, as though he felt it necessary to warn the bar in advance not to ask him to consider issues he has already ruled upon in his mind.
An example of this propensity appeared in his concurrence in the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case, the park monument case that was the subject of a recent thread on this site. That case was argued and decided under the Free Speech Clause, although some of us, including me, wondered why it had not been litigated under the Establishment Clause. Without the benefit of any argument based upon alternative First Amendment theories, Justice Scalia gratuitously let us all know that he has already foreclosed all other avenues of attack. “The city,” he wrote, “ought not fear that today’s victory has propelled it from the Free Speech Clause frying pan into the Establishment Clause fire. Contrary to Respondent’s intimation, there are very good reasons to be confident that the park displays do not violate any part of the First Amendment.” Not that anyone asked, of course, but the city fathers of Pleasant Grove are likely relieved to know that they can do whatever the hell they please with religion in the public square without worrying about pesky interference from us Madisonian nut jobs. And it’s nice to know that we need not waste our time and energy presenting issues concerning which Justice Scalia has given us the benefit of his ruling in advance. That’s judicial economy for ya. Come to think of it, he could have crafted Judge Bybee’s memo with maybe a single phone call to the vice-president. No wonder these guys are so comfortable around shotguns.
Scalia never quite grasped this whole unalienable rights business OR the object of the Fordham exercise. either, apparently.
Child’s play for a students of Locke…
http://discoverjohnlocke.com/quotes.html
“Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to”. (Second Treatise, Chapter 18).
“(Tyranny is) … when the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion”. (Second Treatise, Chapter 18).
Unfortunately I was not a visitor here when Deeply Worried was a poster; obviously it’s my loss. I’m sorry for your loss of a good companion poster.