A master wordsmith, Justice Antonin Scalia is without a doubt the most colorful writer on the Supreme Court. Examples of his most famous lines include:
The story is told of the elderly judge who, looking back over a long career, observes with satisfaction that, when I was young, I probably let stand some convictions that should have been overturned, and when I was old I probably set aside some that should have stood; so overall, justice was done. I sometimes think that is an appropriate analogy to this Court’s constitutional jurisprudence, which alternately creates rights that the Constitution does not contain and denies rights that it does. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 59-60 (1991).
Today’s extension of the Edwards prohibition is the latest stage of prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined constitutional restriction upon law enforcement.
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 166 (1990).
[N]o government official is “tempted” to place restraints on his own freedom of action, which is why Lord Acton did not say “Power tends to purify.” The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction–towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 981 (1992).
At a recent Federalist Society event, Justice Scalia was asked which one of his dissents was his favorite. Justice Scalia responded with a quote from Morrison v. Olson. Morrison was the case in which the Court ruled that the Ethics in Government Act did not violate the separation of power doctrine. The Ethics in Government Act empowered the Attorney General to appoint independent counsel to investigate and prosecute government officials. The lone dissenter, Justice Scalia, penned his favorite lines stating,
Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 699 (1988).
For more of Justice Scalia’s greatest dissents, check out Kevin A. Ring’s book, Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court’s Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice.
A recent SMSB post also featured t-shirts with some of Scalia’s more memorable quotes on them.
Written by Benson Varghese. ♦ Contact Benson.♦ Have Res Ipsa Blog delivered to you.

(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)






One Comment, Comment or Ping
020033
My favorite is Justice Scalia’s dissent in In Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, No. 05–1508 (April 17, 2007), where he repeatedly benchslaps his favorite target, Justice Stevens:
For some, policy-driven interpretation is apparently just fine … [b]ut for everyone else, let us return to Statutory Interpretation 101 …. This case is not a scary math problem; it is a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation …. The sheer applesauce of [JUSTICE STEVENS'S] statutory interpretation should be obvious …. Contrary to the Court and JUSTICE STEVENS, I do not believe that what we are sure the Legislature meant to say can trump what it did say.
Slip op. at 3, 5-6, 13.
http://sophisticmiltonianserbonianblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/j-scalia-unplugged/
Jul 29th, 2008
Reply to “[Update: Poll Added] Justice Scalia’s All-Time Favorite Dissent: A Wolf in a Wolf’s Clothing”