Cara L. Gallagher, Weekend Contributor
Last week, the internet of trolls solace public opinion melted for a few days grounding every other political story to a halt. Justice Scalia suddenly died and a confluence of voices, both allies and foes, shouted loud enough to practically awake him from the dead. Once they quieted, the memorials began. Moments and stories told by those who knew him, Scalia “best-of” lists, and the resurrection of “argle-bargle” – Just when I thought we’d finally buried that phrase – dominated the news cycles, stealing the spotlight from Donald Trump. So many charming Scalia moments pointed to the complexity of a man I myself had complex feelings about.
My Scalia moment happened in July of 2012, my first year working at C-SPAN. My boss and mentor, Brian Lamb, knew my affinity for the Supreme Court and invited me to join him at the taping of a Q&A interview with the Justice, who’d just written his book Reading Law. After the interview, Justice Scalia’s handler shot me daggers as I hovered outside the green room. Had Mr. Lamb not intervened by introducing us, the picture below would never have happened. Here’s how one of my greatest celebrity moments went down:
Me (read with bounciest, gushiest pitch possible): Justice Scalia, my name is Cara Gallagher and I’m a huge, huge fan of your writi-…
Scalia: Ok, ok, Carrie. Let’s do this.
Correct, that’s not my name.
Brusque disposition aside, the Justice was kind enough to stick around, take the picture, and chat for a little while. I was and remain a loyal fan of Justice Scalia’s opinions and dissents. Regardless of whether the case was as high profile as same-sex marriage or lower profile like an EPA case, reading a Scalia opinion, especially a dissent, meant I was likely going to disagree with the opinion before I read it and end up virtually persuaded by it at the end.
I used to run from the Court, nearly stumbling on my walk, while thumbing past the majority opinions just to get to the Scalia dissent. In Court, I would strain my neck from the gallery to see his face as he read a dissent from the bench. His profound sense of American and European history always nearly convinced me why I should come his way. His dry wit and snarky use of “Really?” appealed to my millennial sense of humor in the same way SNL’s Amy Poehler and Seth Meyer’s Weekend Update series did. Scalia’s wordsmith-ing skills charmed me. Words like ‘perpetuity’ and ‘prudential,’ I’ve always thought of him whenever I’ve heard or read them.
His words could also feel like bullets when they were launched at colleagues he disagreed with. To offend with Scalia’s brand of intellectual supremacy not the person but their ideas would be aspirational for most. His emotions got the better of him and his barbed criticisms of other Justices, even Chief Justice Roberts, as well as his flare for hyperbole, invited the masses into a mainstream Supreme Court written for their soap opera-level of pleasure. I myself got a lot of mileage out of his opinions as well as his silly facial expressions and conductor-like hand gestures. In last year’s same-sex marriage case, he famously asked the majority to go “ask the nearest hippie” whether intimacy was a protected freedom. So, we did and wrote about what that hippie said about Constitutional law.
His inclination to answer critical legal questions with an original interpretation of the Constitution, most likely would’ve inspired another barbed conversation between him and former Justice John Paul Stevens’ regarding the latter’s book on how he would change the Constitution (Scalia: Pearl clutch!).
I could forgive his brand of conservatism and originalist reading of Constitutional text, but the version of Antonin I knew was out of bounds and indefensible during the Fisher affirmative action oral arguments last year. It was there that I was reminded of the intolerant Scalia, the one whose whitewashed version of a post-racial American history I am thankful not to have to read from him when that decision comes down this summer.
The “yuck” factor on the internet passed a shamefully low level of scrutiny last week in the hours immediately after Justice Scalia’s death. I get it. His opponents have ample reasons and opinions to support such opposition. If this was a Supreme Court vote count and a simple tally had to be taken, I would be one of those opponents. But that kind of oversimplification wouldn’t explain my position or the complexity of my feelings for the Justice. It also wouldn’t reveal the humor, or the warmth, the education, or the intensified appreciation for the text of the Constitution that I got from Justice Scalia. Such an oversimplification would be genuine argle-bargle.
Some of my favorite Scalia quotes below:
“Some might conclude that this load could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe.” (U.S. v. Windsor)
“the majority’s resolution of the merits question is so outrageously wrong, so utterly devoid of textual or historic support, so flatly in contradiction of prior Supreme Court cases, so obviously the willful product of hostility…, that I cannot avoid adding my vote to the devastating dissent of the Chief Justice.” (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission)
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.” (Obergefell v. Hodges)
“The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.” (Obergefell v. Hodges)
“Welcome to Groundhog Day.”(Glossip v. Gross)
“Do not use the creative arithmetic that JUSTICE BREYER employs in counting the number of States that use the death penalty when you prepare your next tax return; outside the world of our Eighth Amendment abolitionist-inspired jurisprudence, it will be regarded as more misrepresentation than math.”
(Glossip v. Gross)
Follow Cara Gallagher on Twitter @SupremeBystandr.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Well, Olly, I think I’m sorta inclined to agree with you for once. Progressives ARE interested in creating history – a better one I must add.
Of course, I see that as an advantage.
I believe you find any possible advance for Americans as very frightening.
L’Observer,
Don’t fool yourself; everyone looks forward. The difference is progressives aren’t concerned with learning from history because they too busy creating it.
Nice reminder, Olly. Worthy of notice….
Progressives look forward.
Scalia looked back. Waaaay back.
Wolfefan @6:28 am
It is a disgrace that the President and his wife chose to skip the funeral service, which was, no doubt, a calculated act of defiance and disrespect–one carefully crafted to be, in no uncertain terms, an attempt by this petty and vindictive couple to show the world their complete contempt and utter disdain for a great man, albeit a man whose judgment and decisions may not have always jived with their own. Plain and simple. Period. This isn’t about wholeheartedly agreeing with Scalia’s judicial decisions; it’s about something so basic as the President of the United States showing the proper respect and deference for Scalia. After reading some of the previous comments from the lunatics applauding this great man’s death, I can already tell that my remarks will be lost on those who, along with the Obamas, are so lacking in judgment and common decency that they resort to rejoicing and applauding Scalia’s death; however, I still maintain that the decision to skip Scalia’s funeral service–planned to deliver a message–was simply another example and display of this President’s lack of judgment and decency.
What a lovely testament to Scalia. He was a complex person, and even those who disagreed with him still found his opinions thought provoking. Scalia was not a black-and-white, two dimensional figure. He was a prominent, opinionated, outspoken Justice, and he served this country for many years.
When I read some of the comments about Scalia soon after his passing, I couldn’t help but wonder if his family would read the Turley blog. That’s the trouble with being related to someone famous and controversial. When he suddenly passed, not even his death quelled the vitriol.
Isaac – the Constitution was created with a mechanism for adapting it to changing times – i.e. the amendment process. That is how we incorporated women’s rights and freed the slaves. The Constitution should not be interpreted from the bench, it should be amended by law. The Court is not supposed to circumvent the democratic process and legislate from the bench.
Above all, that is what I wish from the Supreme Court. Decide cases as they pertain to the law, not change the law or the Constitution. Leave that up to Congress and voters. That would take the personal politics out of the process, and would reduce the panic over a vacancy. Professor Turley, for example, consistently writes about how the White House does not follow the rule of law, even though he seems to agree with their politics.
We need more deontologists on the bench like Scalia and fewer utilitarians. No wonder the progressives are dancing on his grave.
Some funeral services are arranged so that the public is not invited, just specific persons are invited to attend. The “service” is the last event before burial or burning. Maybe Obama was not invited. That being said, I am aggravated at all the blathering which came out within five minutes of the news of his demise. Mitch McConnell and others pontificating on his successor.
This article here is quite good.
Scalia had a great delivery system. However, his substance ranged from incorrect to destructive. He did more to entrench the oligarchical nature of American government than anyone. We have a system whereby an individual or corporation can literally buy a governorship, place in Congress, place in the Senate, and even the Presidency. From Rick Scott, one of the most despicable thieves ever, to our present circus for President, we have strayed so far from our origins to be next to nothing like the intentions of the founding fathers. There were great orators, legal minds, and statesmen that supported slavery, keeping women in a place of subservience, eliminating gays from basic rights and freedoms, etc. Lots of destructive types throughout history were great orators.
Great Man! Will be missed.
Thanks for your personal perspective. I did not know your worked w/ Brian Lamb. Being a professional interviewer of people, I have long been impressed w/ Brian Lamb’s ability and consider him the best interviewer of people to ever be on TV. Book Notes is one of the best shows ever on TV.
He had a solid legal mind, but if the political-statist wind hit him the wrong way, he too could be quite hypocritical in his allegiance to the originalist view of the Constitution.
I too am an originalist in regard to the Constitution, I think that trying to mess with its interpretation based upon current circumstances truly leads to a slippery slope.
There are ways to change the Constitution legally, and that ain’t it. It is best to have a bedrock of law that is reliably what it says now, as interpreted the way it was originally meant to mean.
Notwithstanding the counter-argument that they didn’t have cellphones, drones or nuclear bombs when they wrote the Constitution, the very base ideas still apply to modern times. We are still people, and all of the original edicts of civil rights are just the same today as then.
The one case where Scalia totally was a hypocrite, was in Gonzales v. Raich.
That one reconfirmed the very wrong decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
To expand federal jurisdiction into private intra-state activities, on the theory that anything affects anything, was/is a total overreach of the Commerce Clause.
Scalia especially should have known that.
Does anyone know what Judge Scalia held that the words “natural born citizen” in our constitution meant at the time of George Washington? After all that had become a hot legal button several years ago for the “birthers” and I have been told by several of his eulogies that Judge Scalia had an opinion on almost everything under the Sun.
Hi bam bam –
Why do you hold Obama to a higher standard than previous presidents? Also, how long should the Obamas have spent with the family and at the casket? I suspect if they had spent longer you would be complaining about how that diva Obama made everyone wait in line…
I am happy he is no longer on the supreme court.
I did gain great joy & happines upon hearing the news of scalia’s death. If it were possible for him to be voted out, my feelings would not be so strong… But in the land of lifetime appointments, death is the only saving grace & should be celebrated as such.
The Traitor-in-Chief and his wife–too BUSY to attend the actual funeral, itself–somehow managed, after much public criticism, to spend a few moments of their precious time, glancing at the casket and the portrait of Scalia. I suppose that if Obama had a son, he wouldn’t look like Scalia, thus, the disconnect. Funny how Moochie doesn’t seem to be too busy to make the talk show circuit, yakking it up about utter nonsense. No shortage of time to be filmed making a spectacle of herself, donning ill-fitting and unflattering workout attire, dancing along, clumsily, to some music. No problem finding the time to jet set around the globe, on the people’s dime, to stuff her face with gelato and french fries, running up millions in costs.
So many things to do and so little time.
As I previously commented….
Fabulous dinner guest! Maybe just the guy to have on a desert island (seriously. I really mean that)… On the Supreme Court? Not so great.
Cara,
Do you have the Scalia quote correct? The one about the ‘load’ and the oven. Might it have been ‘loaf”?
>> I believe he was a destructive force in making the United States into a fairer, more tolerant and more moral place to live.<<
By which I meant his actions worked against this goal. Maybe fairness and equality had no place in his value system. Too bad if true.
I dunno. I was always deeply unimpressed by Scalia in life and hate to see him elevated to legal sainthood in death. Regardless of his forceful personality and charm, I believe he was a destructive force in making the United States into a fairer, more tolerant and more moral place to live. The biggest hypocrisy of his legal career was his posturing as the upholder of some sacred version of the Constitution that basically only exists in his mind and other legal experts that attempt to position speculation of original intent with fantasy. When it suited his Judical Majesty, the Constitution as we know it was swept aside with alacrity, and “legislating from the bench” in the form of decisions like Citizens United suddenly endowed corporations with the same rights as individual human beings. If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is? So what we have here is a very political animal whose belief system lined up neatly with those who appointed him. He seems to have differed from the majority of justices in being cruder, more forceful and perhaps less ashamed of trying to shape the world in his image of right and wrong. I can see that many admire his many flourishes and turns of phrase. But I am still left with the vision of a man with a huge blind spot in his moral eyesight.