Florida Student Asks Scalia a Question -- and Gets Scolded

Where others fear to tread, a 20-year-old college student from Tequesta, Fla.,boldly stepped forward Tuesday to ask Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a question he did not like during a public appearance in West Palm Beach. "That's a nasty, impolite question," said Scalia, himself an expert on tough questioning, and he at first refused to answer it.

This morning we tracked down student Sarah Jeck, the Florida Atlantic University honors college junior who incurred Scalia's wrath, and she seemed a little stunned, but not cowed, by his reaction. "He can dish it out, but he can't take it, I guess," she says. "I'm generally a very polite person. I'm really surprised the way it turned out. It was not a preposterous question."

So what did Sarah Jeck ask that caused the volatile justice to erupt? According to her own notes and this account in today's Sun-Sentinel, Jeck asked whether the rationale for Scalia's well-known opposition to cameras in the Supreme Court was "vitiated" by the facts that the Court allows public visitors to view arguments and releases full argument transcripts to the public, and that justices go out on book tours. 

It's that last part that probably grated, because Scalia could, at that precise moment, have been said to be on a book tour. He was speaking before the Palm Beach County Forum Club and Bar Association, while his book -- Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, co-authored by Bryan Garner -- was for sale at a table outside the hall. 

Jeck, a political science major, is taking a judicial process class and is looking at the issue of cameras in the courts as her thesis topic. So when she learned Scalia was coming to town, it seemed like a reasonable question to her and her prof Martin Sweet. By tradition, the club invites local university students to forum events and lets them ask questions. "We knew it was a little jab, but his response was unanticipated," she says.

After Scalia made his comment to Jeck, he took several written questions and then circled back to Jeck's query, according to this story in the Palm Beach Post. Scalia said he originally supported the idea of camera access in the courts, but came to oppose it because the inevitable "30-second takeouts" would not give a true picture of what is going on. "Why should I be a party to the miseducation of the American people?" According to Jeck, Scalia made no reference to his book tour as a possible contradiction to his views on public access to the Court.

We asked Jeck two more questions in our brief phone interview this morning. First, is she planning to go to law school? "Yes," she said without hesitation. And second, did she buy Scalia's book? Just as definitively, she said, "I'm a college student. I don't have $30."

Footnote: Sweet, Jeck's professor and pre-law advisor, told us today he is "incredibly proud" of her questioning and demeanor. "It was certainly a pointed question, but not designed to be impolite or nasty," said Sweet, a Supreme Court scholar in his own right. "The point of learning is not to stroke somebody's ego."

Comments

[charlie]

Well many points come to mind in response to Justice Scalia's response and several of the comments left here.

First lets set the stage: He is a public servant entrusted with a lifetime position and an excellent salary (~208K/year) and a retirement at the time of his choosing. The only currently retired Supreme Court Justice, O'Conner, I believe has retired at full pay, but I can't find proof on the web yet. If that's true both values exceed 95th percentile of all Americans in both categories.

When this man of immense power and prestige is asked a question by an earnest student he tells her that its "nasty and impolite"? It boggles my mind that anyone is defending that. Its an extremely valid question, especially given the framing she used about open hearings and transcripts. It should have been answered calmly one way or the other. Maybe he could have reasoned that video is non a valid transcription method, I don't know. Personally I think he got touchy because he is on a book tour and maybe he felt it was a personal attack, which is about what I'd expect from him.

To the person who thought she was "intemperate" in using the term "vitiate", actually she was using a valid legal term "vitiate: to make legally defective or invalid; invalidate: to vitiate a claim". A very correct usage for someone who plans on being a lawyer.

To those who called it a "thinly veiled assault on the judge's moral canons", I think a calmly asked question about something that interests a great many people is about more than bruising one man's ego. All he had to say was that he thought it would be inappropriate to comment on that in this forum and move on.

I've been watching this man since he was appointed, and I'll agree with some others here that he is brilliant, it was one of the most touted points about him during his confirmation hearings, he was a "brilliant legal mind". So what? There are lots of those in the country. The people who sit on the court should not say that the Constitution doesn't prohibit torture because its not punishment, as Scalia said in and interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M. It is semanticly glib but that doesn't mean that our Constitution allows torture. The Constitution states that treaties ratified by the Senate are on par with anything else in the Constitution (cf Article 6) as the supreme law of the land. America has signed and ratified, in 1994, the Convention Against Torture, which has a pretty clear definition of what torture is. That's a pretty gross oversight for a "brilliant legal mind". For those keeping track that's why the Bush administration had to redefine torture so they could say they weren't committing war crimes or violating international law.

[Edward]

I have heard plenty of aurguments on why judges and such do not want cameras in the court room. many to do with witnesses as well as the accuseds right to some privacy as well as not making the court room a show room, which in many ways it already is. the fact that instead of giving an explanation he just gets nasty is side. of course he seems to be a nasty and mean man so why is anyone surprised.

[TJ]

I am a pretty big fan of Justice Scalia generally, but this question does not seem to be rude at all. Tone might have been a player here but even then, its a pretty tame question. Most all implications of inconsistency imply hypocrisy. In the end it would have been good for him to reflect momentarily that he is a servant of the citizenry

[Magginkat]

Scalia and 4 other Supreme idiots should be impeached and removed from the court for making a law to install their stupid little man in the Oval Office.

These 5 self-aggrandizing old coots are the best reason ever to limit the terms on the court to a flat 10 yrs or less.

[Batman]

As an attorney, it was clearly a nasty question. It implied that Justice Scalia was an obvious hypocrite. His reaction may have been over-the-top, but his analysis was accurate. The questioner could have easily rephrased it: "isn't there a tension between your stance on cameras and the court's policy on oral transcripts? What's the rationale for the difference?" Easy to be nice.

[John Galt]

Justice Scalia was incorrect, the question was not nasty or impolite, it could be more correctly characterized as 'stupid' since Ms Jeck was implying that Federal judges are always working, even when they are miles from a courtroom wearing regular clothes.

[PD]

His anger was probably because he couldn't relate her questions back to the actual text of the Constitution...which is his go to when he doesn't feel like answering a question.

[lloyd]

It seems some of these Justices had or have developed, while on the bench, a huge ego. I watched Scalia on a documentary and he came across as such as well a suppressed comedian. He is trying to make a quick buck with his book as do others who write books. If the privacy of Justices is hallowed, he should not be selling books at book singings.

[Thomas Mc]

Scalia is a disgrace to the Court.

[pwgoodman]

Poetryman:
As you know, there were two decisions in BvG. the 7-2 merely remanded the case back to the Fla Supreme Court to craft a remedy. the crucial decision, which stopped the recount, was 5-4. So not only was it close, but Breyer and Souter voted against it. Not so silly.

[Tarheel]

An undergrad poli sci major asks a question and a supreme court justice, a man at the pinnacle of his profession loses his cool. I don't know whether she's brave or not. I don't think the question is the least rude, even if it is implicitly critical. I do think that Scalia clearly has an overblown sense of entitlement to deference. No one is above questioning. And, for the record, it is rude to point out so directly to someone else that they are being rude. I find his response a total overreaction. She was obviously trying to get a rise out of him, but he's the one who took the bait.

[Eric]

I was appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court as part of an experiment of cameras in the courtrooms. It was very successful and proved that Scalia's criticism is a specious one.

Why? Because cameras are no different than words at the end of the day. Make sure the whole trial is available to anyone in the public through streaming, and then there's no way a twisting of the facts could get traction. And who's to say that allowing anyone in the courtroom won't lead to a twisting of the facts? With cameras, they are impassive observers. They don't make a prejudicial judgement of the facts in front of them. So cameras can only make the courts more open, but that's not what attorneys and judges want. The truth is not the goal of the courts. It's winning the argument you want to make.

Scalia is typical of the blue-nosed upper class in this country who believe themselves to be above the common chattel in this nation. They mouth the words of freedom and equality, but their own attitudes show when someone from the "common" people asks them the least uncomfortable question. I thought attorneys thrived on a lively exchange of ideas.

As she said, he can dish it out, but he cannot take it. He's a coward who can't face the truth. If he wasn't, he would have explained the reasonableness of those books being for sale.

[Gaelin]

The obvious rejoinder could easily have been--"And you are a nasty impolite man--Answer the question!

[Patrick Drazen]

You want to talk about miseducating the American people? Have you ever read Scalia's lone dissent in Edwards v Aguillard? It flew in the face of the evidence and tried to attribute benign motives to the Creationists who lost the case 8 to 1 (and guess who the one was?). He's one of the corrupt gang who have tried to politicize justice in this country. Ms. Jeck's question was nowhere near as disrespectful as Scalia's whole life has been.

[D.Gordon Franks]

The emperor has not clothes and he gets mad because someone points it out? Scalia is the poster child for not having lifetime appointments.

[Whozat]

All of you who are posting abusive, nasty comments, insulting language, and namecalling, and then complaining that Scalia is a meanie, might want to reflect on the irony...

[KalPal]

Someone asserted that Scalia has moral canons. How was that consclusion reached? By Scalia's previous reactions to criticism? By his writing a decision with the tag line that said decision can never be used as a precedent in the future, it being his appointing GW Bush president of the United States while his son was working for Bush?

Scalia has the morals of an alley cat in heat. His ideology trumps logic and good sense consistently. He imagines that he knows what the founders would say about situations no had ever been dreamed of in the 18th century.

To paraphrase something that was said in a play once, The more Scalia talks to god the more he realizes he is talking to himself.

[Nancy Irving]

Scalia lacks judicial temperament. With every word that comes out of his mouth, he confirms it.

[John]

The Bush vs. Gore decision to stop the recount was 5-4, not 7-2.

While seven justices agreed that the court-ordered, statewide recount violated the Equal Protection Clause, only five justices agreed on the remedy. Chief Justice william rehnquist and Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and anthony kennedy noted that Florida law required the state to select its electors for the electoral college by December 12, which was the day the Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore. Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy concluded that it was thus impossible to complete a statewide recount by day's end. For all intents and purposes, then, a majority of the Court ruled that the 2000 U.S. presidential election was over and George W. Bush had won.

Justices John Paul Stevens, david souter, stephen breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, with Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg each writing their own dissenting opinion. The December 12 deadline chosen by the majority was misleading, the dissenting justices asserted, since under federal law the electors had until December 18 to deliver their votes to Congress and until December 28 before Congress could request the electors to deliver their votes had they not already done so. "By halting the Florida recount in the interest of finality," Justice Stevens wrote, "the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent—and are therefore legal votes under state law—but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines." In addition, Breyer stated: "An appropriate remedy would be to remand this case with instructions that, even at this late date, would permit the Florida Supreme Court to require recounting all undercounted votes in Florida … and to do so in accordance with a single uniform standard."

[Argyle]

What truely concerns me and what this young lady highlighted is that Scalia is a supreme court justice who let's his emotions dictate his decisions.

[Dave T]

I am apalled by Justice Scalia's response. It shows the arrogance and condescension that can evolve over time when a Supreme Court Justice believes he is more important than the laws he is sworn to protect and strives to make his views the law of the land despite espousing the view that his view is the view of the framers of the constitution. (Strict Constructionist) Justice Scalia is no doubt brilliant - I've read his cases both during and after law school. But he is not infallible and he is NOT always right. As he has grown older his views have become more and more mean-spirited. (Despite his touted long-term relationship with Justice Ginsburg - her civility is not rubbing off on him.) One can only hope that he will decide that it is time for him to move on with his life in another venue. Ms. Jeck's question is and was reasonable. She is a student researching the exact issue she posed to Justice Scalia. She intends to be a lawyer someday. It is time for Justice to show some dignity, compassion and frankly, grow up.

[spotter]

"A not so thinly veiled assault on the judge’s moral canons?"

Hah! This particular judge has no moral canons.

He gets a fat paycheck and a lifetime appointment to undermine our Constitution. He should be willing to give up the book tours for that unearned privilege. And, by the way, he should be willing to recuse himself in a proper fashion in important cases in which he has a clear conflict of interest. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore.

To call this man a judge is to twist the word beyond all meaning.

[bob h]

"He can dish it out, but he can't take it, I guess,"

Which is another way of saying that he is a good Republican.

[Forest Sprague]

Scalia will go down in history as one of the characters who stoled the election and gave Bush the opportunity to screw our nation. They are both traitors to the original intent of our founding fathers.
They come from a mind set that this is their America

[Brian]

The "where others fear to tread" locution, implying that the questioner exhibited courage, is false and the author knows it. In asking a stupid and rude question, the questioner knew to a certainty not only that would there be no negative consequences to her conduct, but that that she would instantly be praised for her worthless self-expression, as she was by her professor, by Mauro, and by other non-thinkers.