Free Republic

Coming up this evening at 9 p.m., "Piers Morgan Tonight" sits down with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Washington D.C. for an exclusive sit-down interview.

Pope Benedict XVI has stated it clearly: homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. But Elizabeth Scalia, a writer/blogger for First Things and The Anchoress on Patheos, disagrees. In a blog post which may be found here, Ms. Scalia writes, "If Christians have any interest in reaching out to the gay community, if we have any hope to speak a message which can touch their hearts as well, we absolutely must be willing to live as their family. Behind his blundering obscenity, behind his facile attempts to explain Scripture away, behind the blatant hypocrisy of his behavior toward those who disagree...

[T]he irony of Roberts’s opinion must not go unnoticed. His opinion, which is the object of such conservative scorn, is in fact right out of the Antonin Scalia (who dissented) and Robert Bork playbook. (Hat tip to Donald Boudreaux for first bringing this to my attention.) Bork and Justice Scalia believe that unelected judges should not interfere with the elected branches of government except when Congress violates an express, narrowly construed right (essentially the ones in the Bill of Rights). Other interference is branded “judicial activism.” I once heard Justice Scalia say: “My job is not to strike down laws...

Dinners were served in the basement. Ambassadors, generals with many stars, senior White House officials and closely read columnists — all would walk past the yellowing kitchen, which looked as if it hadn’t been updated since the Ford administration, and down a narrow flight of stairs into the dimly lighted dining room. Guests were arrayed around the table according to rank, with the most important ones squeezed in the center. Although the Old World meals could be quite elaborate — venison paté, duck in bitter orange — they were prepared and served entirely by the host, a stickler for protocol...

Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2012/06/evidence-that-the-votes-shifted-after-conference-initial-vote-to-declare-mandate-unconstitutional.html (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as...

June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia Bench Statement Rich food for thought in Justice Scalia's dissenting Bench Statement. I have taken liberty to change paragraphing for easier reading (but note Scalia's use of italics). Scalia's last two paragraphs below. Full Bench Statement follows. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling...

The issue arose early in the oral argument, even before the solicitor general could make his claim of exclusivity. Justice Scalia kicked off, asking Mr. Clement whether he would concede "that the State has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the Federal Government has no interest in removing ... and the State has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there." This time Mr. Clement answered: "I think my answer to that is no." But he did not back up his answer with either...

Is Roger Ailes clerking for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia? One might be forgiven for thinking so following last week’s oral arguments on the health-care law before the nation’s highest court. As has been pointed out elsewhere, some of Scalia’s questions from the bench made use of the tone and even the diction of the attacks on the Affordable Care Act frequently heard on Fox News and conservative talk-radio shows. After Scalia picked up on the idea that a government empowered to have its citizens buy health insurance or face a penalty may also strong arm them into buy some...

If the law is an ass, as Mr. Bumble declares in “Oliver Twist,” then constitutional law must surely be the entire wagon train. Like most Washington policy wonks, I spent too much of last week reading transcripts of the Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of the new health reform law. This was to be a “teaching moment” for the country, an opportunity to see the best and the brightest engage in a reasoned debate on the limits of federal power. Instead, what we got too often was political posturing, Jesuitical hair-splitting and absurd hypotheticals. My first thought on perusing...

Appearing on HBO's Bill Maher Show Obama's former green job czar Van Jones attacks Supreme Court Justice Scalia over his questioning in the Obamacare SCOTUS arguments.

Senator Ben Nelson's accusing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia of lacking impartiality. Nelson should be ashamed of himself for supporting an unconstitutional monstrosity like Obamacare... (video at link)

Arguing about whether the court could keep some provisions of the health care law intact, Justice Antonin Scalia says that reading all 2,700 pages of the statute would constitute, basically, torture: Justice Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? (Laughter.) Justice Scalia: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each

In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General and chief ObamaCare advocate Donald Verrilli was presented with a substantial portion of his own posterior by Justice Antonin Scalia. The summary execution began when Verrilli made the extraordinary mistake of schooling the Court on the proper meaning of its own decisions. “No it didn’t,” said Scalia to the stunned Solicitor General in reference to his errant references to the significance of previous cases. And what followed was a merciless barrage of facts exposing the overreach of the individual mandate, ObamaCare’s method of creating “fairness in healthcare” by making those...

The guy who uploaded this to YouTube calls it a “benchslap.” It's loads of fun, and the point about limited powers will sound familiar. The key part comes early when Scalia jumps in to challenge Verrilli's citation of Court precedent. Those cases dealt with commerce, he says; in this case, the legislation is aimed at people who aren't participating in commerce, i.e. people without insurance. That's a gut-punch to the left since, once you make that move conceptually, the Commerce Clause defense of the statute is hanging by a thread. You can follow his thinking over the rest of the...

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington— The Supreme Court strengthened the rights of property owners who are confronted by federal environmental regulators, ruling Wednesday that landowners are entitled to a hearing to challenge the government's threats to fine them for alleged Clean Water Act violations. The 9-0 decision revolved around procedural matters and did not resolve questions about the reach of the act, which has been the subject of different legal interpretations. But it is a victory for an Idaho couple, Mike and Chantell Sackett, who faced fines of up to $75,000 a day if they didn't restore a small...

Former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson and Eugene Scalia, Justice Scalia's son, will represent LightSquared. Wireless startup LightSquared has hired prominent conservative lawyers Ted Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, and Eugene Scalia, a son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as it tries to save its multibillion-dollar plan to build a nationwide 4G wireless network, the company confirmed Tuesday. Although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted LightSquared a conditional waiver to move forward last year, the commission is now moving to block the company's network over concerns that it would interfere with GPS devices. The hiring of two...

<p>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday touted his approach to interpreting the federal Constitution that focuses on the original intent of the Founding Fathers.</p> <p>Scalia, a former University of Chicago law professor, called the “originalism” method “the lesser evil.”</p>

Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday touted his approach to interpreting the federal Constitution that focuses on the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Scalia, a former University of Chicago law professor, called the “originalism” method “the lesser evil.” “I don’t have to prove [it’s] perfect. The question is whether it’s better than everything else,” said Scalia, who addressed about 400 people at the University of Chicago Law School. Originalism was behind his reasoning in a 2008Ö Supreme Court case that upheld the individual’s right to possess a firearm, he said. Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the case and argued...

I confess, I despise “Black Friday.” I hate the way consumers are urged to haul their Thanksgiving-exhausted selves out to stores — away from family members who have often traveled some distance to come together — so they can surrender their human dignity or assault the dignity of others in order to snag a ten-dollar sweater and a waffle-maker for $9.99. And I hate the way consumers go along with it. I hate the way the mad buying and bad behavior is attached to Christmas — the coming of the Christ was meant to set us free, and yet...

All of us shooters give lip service to proselytizing: “Take a new shooter to the range!” “Take someone hunting for the first time!” Few actually DO it, however, at least very often. Once again, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia inspires us. Just caught this from Eugene Volokh: http://volokh.com/2011/10/23/another-hunter-on-the-high-court/ Kudos to Justice Scalia for taking the time to do this. And kudos to Justice Kagan for being open-minded. Scalia has obviously been a voice of reason for our side. Kagan has not. Will her new perspective be reflected in her next analysis of these issues on the highest Bench in...