• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Six Justices Will Attend State Of The Union Address »

January 25, 2011



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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad