[EL] Scalia's rhetoric

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Rick calls this statement of Scalia "vituperative(ness)":
 
There, Scalia opened his dissent with: “Today, the Court issues a sweeping  
holding that will have profound implications for the constitutional ideal 
of one  person, one vote, for the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
and for the  primacy of the State in managing its own elections. If the Court’
s destination  seems fantastical, just wait until you see the journey.”
 
Vituperative is defined as "Using, containing, or marked by harshly 
critical or irate language"  or "bitter and abusive."
 
Scalia  may not have justified this statement to Rick's satisfaction but I 
see nothing  "harshly critical," "bitter or abusive," or particularly 
"irate" about this  statement.  
 
I  guess I could be colored by my own biases or maybe Rick is.   Jim
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/25/2015 10:49:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_Exhausted by Scalia’s  Rhetoric_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73787) 
 
Posted  on _June 25, 2015 7:42  pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73787)  
by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

 
I  read a lot of Justice Scalia opinions to write _The Most  Sarcastic 
Justice_ (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2550923) , and I 
have to say I really enjoyed reading those  opinions—they were pithy, smart, 
insightful and blunt. Much more fun than say,  reading a Breyer or Souter 
opinion with which I was much more likely to agree  substantively. 
But  something’s changed more recently. _Mark  Tushnet_ 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/justice-scalia-as-stylist.html)  puts it like this:  “
contrary to the seemingly widespread view that Justice Scalia is a splendid  
stylist, his snarkiness is getting tired.” 
The  question is this: has Justice Scalia’s rhetoric gotten more extreme, 
or is it  just that it’s the same routine, over and over, applied in new 
cases.  I  think it is some of both. 
The  biggest problem is a kind of Chicken Little-ism. Every majority 
opinion with  which Scalia disagrees is dishonest, it means the end of principled  
jurisprudence, it will lead to horrible consequences. 
I  think of the earlier opinion this term in the _Alabama  Redistricting 
case_ (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-895_o7jq.pdf) . There, 
Scalia opened his dissent with:  “Today, the Court issues a sweeping holding 
that will have profound  implications for the constitutional ideal of one 
person, one vote, for the  future of the Voting RightsAct of 1965, and for the 
primacy of the State in  managing its own elections. If the Court’s 
destination seems fantastical, just  wait until you see the journey.” 
The  opinion then went on to discuss standing and related issues, but NEVER 
 explained even why he thought the opinion would lead to such dire  
consequences. We got the vituperativeness, but not the follow through. 
It’s  as though he’s tired.  And it is making us tired of reading him. 
Just  wait till Obergefell.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150626/c055dc30/attachment.html>