KHH1

By Erwin Chemerinsky
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA is setting a terrible example for young lawyers. Ignore, for now, his jurisprudence, his famously strict original-ism; it’s his tone that’s the problem.
I have taught argumentation for many years, first as an instructor to high school and college debaters, currently as a law professor. Throughout my career I have always cautioned students away from nastiness as a crutch for those who cannot win using reason or legal precedent. I have told them to stick to persuasion and to dissecting the opposition’s logical fallacies.
But lately my students have been turning in legal briefs laced with derision and ad hominem barbs. For this trend, I largely blame Scalia. My students read his work, find it amusing and imitate his truculent style.
Scalia has long relied on ridicule. In past years he has dismissed his colleagues’ decisions as “nothing short of ludicrous” and “beyond absurd,” “entirely irrational” and not “pass[ing] the most gullible scrutiny.” He has called them “preposterous” and “so unsupported in reason and so absurd in application [as] unlikely to survive.”
Scalia’s opinions this term, however, were especially nasty, sarcastic and personal.
Consider several examples. In his dissent in Obergefell vs. Hodges, which declared unconstitutional state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, Scalia said that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion was “as pretentious as its content is egotistic” and that its “showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”
In a footnote he wrote, “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth v**e, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.” He likened the majority opinion to “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
Such mockery does not amount to a legal argument; it’s nothing more than an attack on the author’s writing technique. A litigator who compared an opponent’s brief to a fortune cookie likely would be, and should be, sanctioned by the court.
In Glossip vs. Gross, which upheld the three-drug protocol used in lethal injection, Justice Stephen G. Breyer urged the court to solicit arguments on the death penalty — specifically whether it’s a cruel and unusual punishment and thus in violation of the 8th Amendment.
Scalia wrote a scathing response. He referred to Breyer’s opinion as “gobbledy-gook” and said his argument was “nonsense.” He concluded by stating, “Justice Breyer does not just reject the death penalty, he rejects the Enlightenment.”
What did Breyer do to deserve this treatment? He was hardly the first member of the Supreme Court to question the death penalty’s constitutionality. Fellow doubters include Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun and John Paul Stevens.
I do not mean to suggest that Scalia is the first or only member of the court to use invective. Nor do I deny that some find such language entertaining or delightfully funny. But Scalia’s browbeating is childish, even vain; like a harshly negative book critic, he revels in his own turns of phrase. And his attitude, just like his legal theory, affects the profession as a whole.
Scalia’s spiteful recent dissents probably reflect frustration; after all, he was on the losing side of several major cases. Still, that’s no excuse for lashing out. Nor should either liberals or conservatives dismiss such behavior as just “Scalia being Scalia.”
If legal professionals ignore Scalia’s meanness or — worse — pass around his insults at cocktail parties like Wildean witticisms, they’ll encourage a new generation of peevish, callous scoffers.
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

Scoop Henderson Loc: The Rez, (I am from Egypt)

First on the ass wipes list of robe draped lawyers is old lady ginsburg and her klit pal kagan. These 2 radical, q***r nation promoters should have recused from the homosexual marriage thing.

KHH1

Scalia must be your mentor........ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

rolse

What on earth has become wrong about telling the t***h? Does it not fit the agenda of those who would have the law be wh**ever the people in power find it convenient to have it be at the moment? There is no possibility that the Affordable Care Act, or ANY other similar central government health care proposition advanced could be constitutional. Health care is not one of the powers that the nations granted to the federal government. Neither is welfare or education. The existence of the department of health, education and welfare is proof positive that the de facto government of this country is not a constitutional republic. There are many other such proofs, like p**********l executive orders that constitute edicts. An edict is a law enacted by the decree of the ruler. The president, under the constitution, ONLY has the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The supreme court had no power to decide what marriage is. For that matter, neither the states NOR the federal government has any right wh**ever to require permission from the government to marry in the first place. It also has no power to compel anyone not an official or agent of the government to perform any ceremony, or any private business, or person, to associate with, do business with, or perform any service for, anyone they choose not to for any reason. We, as a people have gradually allowed those who seek to control us to convert our human rights into privileges available to us only by consent of our rulers. WE are supposed to BE the rulers, not the way it now is.

KHH1

Delivery...many people have a dysfunctional communication style...their parents should have beat their azzes and taught them some gotdamn social etiquette....

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Something you completely lack, though your parents, probably, attempted to instill it. It, obviously, failed. :shock: :XD: :shock:

KHH1

Where they failed is where they told me not to engage ignorant, r****t azz, backwoods people.....as you can see based on my posting in here at OPP...i failed them miserably in that regard...............

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

According to you, all of us are as you described. Is it truly possible only you are correct? :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: I would suggest a great many of us could go into your parents home, sit down and have a polite, non denigrating, civilized conversation on many matters. It would absolutely not include you. They have more class and dignity, which, again, you fail to utilize.

KHH1

You are entitled to believe what you like, just like what i believe abut the right...fair is fair.....

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

While Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kagan are yours.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

The difference we have is I believe I can have a civilized conversation with individuals who do not have my same politics. I believe we can find points of agreement. You believe your points, beliefs and politics are the only correct beliefs and politics. You have zero ability to think beyond your points, beliefs and politics. You are JUST like many extreme rightists. You put your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala rather then try to communicate. I would rather talk to your parents. :!: :!: :!:

KHH1

at least they are not some old vile azz nasty r****t phucks........

KHH1

I only get that way when people resort to insulting my intelligence or throwng insults...like the fool who is going to tell me that N. korea getting nukes was a conscession compared to Obama stopping Iran altogether....that is why I stick to academia...you can't say stupid azz schit in that environment without getting thrown out on your azz...

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I beg to disagree. I have never insulted your intelligence; however, on more then one occasion you have been insulting and denigrating toward me when I asked a question or referenced comments you had previously made. It, seems, to take little for you to perceive insult when none is meant.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

After several months of reading your many post (most Marxist influence), they reveal your extreme r****m and intolerance, devoid of deeper thinking and education beyond lower test score percentile.
Anti-christian, anti-constitution, anti-Israel, anti-conservative, anti-white, pro-obama, pro-demoralization of america via pro-gay, pro-a******n, pro-communisium.
And to think so many spilled their blood, giving you the freedom to vomit your beliefs on this forum, and unsuspecting students you cause brain damage in an attempt to propagate h**e-filled, r****t, intolerance as yourself.