Scalia Tells Lawmakers to Use Their Powers

Members of Congress who attended a closed-door forum with Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday said they got some advice on how to keep the Supreme Court out of their hair.

Two of his suggestions: Be as specific as possible when writing legislation, and watch the boundaries set out by the Constitution.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said Scalia emphasized that often, when the Supreme Court upends lawmakers’ work, “it’s because Congress is silent” regarding its intent. Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) said he took away that Congress should be its own “first line of defense” in ensuring that the laws it passes are constitutional.

The talk was hosted by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chair of the House’s Tea Party Caucus and an advocate for restraining congressional power via the commerce clause and other means. Any House member could attend the event, though, and more than 50 did so, she said. Reporters were not allowed inside, but several lawmakers described the discussion.

At least three House Democrats attended and two of them said the event was worthwhile. “There was nothing partisan here,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). “It was Justice Scalia expressing his views.” Nadler said he didn’t know that the House’s Tea Party Caucus was hosting the event until reporters told him afterward.

Nadler said the session was wide-ranging, and that several lawmakers asked questions. In response, Nadler said, Scalia restated his longstanding willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade and reiterated his view that a line-item veto could be constitutional.

Nadler said that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) asked about the Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that the Environmental Protection Agency has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In response to Barton, Scalia noted that Congress can amend the relevant statute if it wishes, Nadler said.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who attended and took notes, called the discussion “perfectly suited for a bipartisan audience.” She said Scalia advised lawmakers to get hard-copy versions of the Federalist Papers, but much of the discussion “was pretty dry.”

“This is a discussion going on at a very, very high level right now,” Schakowsky, who is not a lawyer, told reporters after leaving midway. “Lots of Latin phrases from lawyers. I’m not sure I understand them.”

Bachmann said Scalia’s talk would be the first in a series. She said she plans to invite other “people who are known for having an understanding of the Constitution,” continuing next with Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn. Any other Supreme Court justice is welcome, she said.

Comments

[jwt]

I believe the previous poster greatly overestimates the high school curriculum related to constitutional law. Thankfully, the Congress is not comprised entirely of lawyers. Inviting professional constitutional scholars to conduct forums for Congress is an amusing thought. Do any of them agree on a single interpretation of a single phrase? Hardly instructive. To the poster bent on self-agrandisement: Opprobium? Do you get paid based on the obscurity of the word? If you mean contempt or scorn, say that.

[Dr.Aidun Dravidian Esq.]

Politics, personality, and principles define judges, especially SCOTUS justices. Scalia is a strict originalist who may not want to entertain the thought that the society he and us live in is in continuous flux.

But Reagan saw fit to nominate him, and the Senate almost unanimously confirmed him. Go figure. Scalia certainly may not have passed electoral muster.

[Anthony J. Colleluori]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Scalia speaking to Congressmen(and women) about why he thinks the court has a problem with the way Congress does its job. In fact these types of conversations happen when the justices teach at colleges and give speeches to the ABA. No one should be surprised that Scalia feels Roe was improperly decided and it isn't a shock that an originalist thinks Congress should familiarize itself with the federalist papers. Similar advice would be expected from Justice Kagen, had Congress called her down to testify while she was Solicitor General.

While it is the courts job to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, it isn't its job to undo legislation (unless it is unconstitutional) teaching them how to do their job better (and in effect constitutionally) is not only good policy it is cost effective. It will result in less need to do things over and over again and help Congress to get things right the first time.

IF you don't like what Congress passes (which I think is the problem with the first two views) then maybe you need to re-read the documents and either find new Congressmen or run yourselves.

[Edwin B Spievack, Esq.]

It is not the role of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to teach the basics of constitutional law to Congressman who should have learned it in their high school civics classes. If groups within the Congress feel the need for such training, they should seek it within the halls of Congress, or invite constitutional scholars from universities to conduct forums on the subject. Scalia to should know better than to compromise his and the Court's integrity with this kind of nonsense.

[Arline Jolles Lotman, Esquire]

Truly shocking disregard for the post of U.S. Supreme Court Justice. A lower court occupant would be subject to far more opprobium and rightly so. If we lived in a more balanced political environment, Justice Scalia might have faced some calls to step down. Integrity is still the core value of any judge;putting it into question athe highest Court is truly shocking.