Supreme Court

Justice Antonin Scalia's philosophy and contributions to the US Supreme Court, and the effect of his demise on the Court, particularly on Amendments IV, V, VI and VIII.

Owing to Justice Scalia's disruptive nature, a number of impolite social media posts, op-eds and tweets are expected from parties who were usually not in agreement with his philosophy. Despite the presence of other "conservative" Justices, Antonin Scalia's aggressive and frequently insulting views either infuriated the opposition or made individuals who agreed with him feel immensely superior and triumphant. I personally believe he can be rightfully counted among the best orators in American history and also the best writer ever among Supreme Court Justices. With respect to the Court's future, numerous diverse responses on the part of politicians are to be expected in the near future (Burrus, 2016). My hope and prediction is that a number of individuals who opposed his philosophy will accord him the regard he rightfully deserves, which will, possibly more than any other thing, prove his continuing legacy. Viewed objectively, Scalia definitely ranks among the nation's greatest justices. His flamboyant wittiness and powerful reasoning made him the strongest and most prominent supporter of the constitutional interpretation theory of originalism, which was scorned at the time Scalia was first appointed by Reagan, but has now assumed 'mainstream' status in the minds of conservatives as well as liberals. His notions will indisputably continue to be debated among legal circles even a century from now, just like Joseph Story, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior are (Burrus, 2016). When visiting California, President Obama hailed Scalia's larger-than-life role at the Court, his sharp intellect and his profoundly-persuasive and marvelous legal brain. The Justice's death sparked an instant, heated political battle within the Congress. While the Democratic Party called for the immediate nomination of another individual instead of leaving his post vacant for the succeeding President to appoint, important Republicans (presidential candidates, Mitch McConnell (the upper house's majority leader) and others) demanded the opposite. A well-informed spokesperson closely linked to the Obama government even anonymously imparted a list of the prospective candidates shortlisted by Obama (Knox, 2016), including DC circuit appellate court judge Sri Srinivasan; Georgetown professor of law, Neal Katyal, who worked for a year as acting solicitor general to Obama; DC circuit appellate court's Chief Judge, Merrick Garland; Loretta Lynch, Attorney General; Don Verrilli, the Solicitor General who is a favorite of Obama's government for his persistent defense of Obamacare at the Court; Eric Holder, ex- Attorney General; and Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security.

Scalia's relatively civil-libertarian view of Amendment IV left several observers astonished. On particular matters, the Justice backed distinct rules in favor of law enforcement (e.g., the unbiased test for justifying a stop). But with regard to defining fairness and searches, Scalia's formalism and originalism philosophies ensured he supported rules which frequently facilitated crime (Slattery, et.al, 2016). For instance, consider the subject of how a search is defined. Any object plainly visible to law enforcement officers already legitimately present at the site can be seized without warrants. While a number of justices were ready to expand this principle to cover and authorize a minor added police intrusion, Scalia wasn't. With regard to the Arizona v. Hicks case (Slattery, et.al, 2016), Scalia maintained that law enforcement is not entitled to even shift any stereo turntable by some inches in order to see and note the serial number down prior to obtaining a probable cause-justified warrant. Justice Blackmun disputed the certiorari denial clarifying why the present death sentence contradicts the American Constitution. This clarification typically alludes to personal, logical, and ethical standpoints and not to Constitutional principle and text (Scalia - Fifth Amendment 'Clearly Permits the Death Penalty' - NYTimes.com). The latter instead of the former must offer control. Amendment V safeguards individuals from being held answerable for capital punishment unless on any Grand Jury charge or presentment or from being robbed of life without due legal process. This evidently allows the imposition of death sentence and undoubtedly affirms that it isn't an unusual or brutal punishment forbidden by Amendment VIII.

Scalia's influence on the legal system of America is probably most evident in the approach he adopted to two Amendment VI provisions. He ensured its Confrontation Clause didn't disappear. For many years, Scalia and many other justices wrote separately to reinvigorate it, an effort that bore fruit in the 2004 Crawford v. Washington case (Slattery, et.al, 2016). On behalf of the 7-Justice majority, Scalia wrote a bright-line law, replacing the balancing hearsay test; 'witnesses' are individuals who provide a statement of evidence, and not simply anything which is covered by the muddled hearsay principle; further, 'testimony' represents an official statement to the government for proving a fact. Further, confrontation necessitates a chance to directly question and challenge witnesses' story. Additionally, Scalia was at the forefront of efforts to revive Amendment VI's Clause of Jury Trial. He was staunchly against the prohibition of capital punishment by extending the Clause of unusual and cruel punishment outlined in Amendment VIII (Slattery, et.al, 2016). Clear references of the long-established capital punishment rule are evident in the Constitution, and judges shall not bank on evolving decency norms for undermining the death sentence's historical and textual justification. He asserted that fervent ingrained standpoints against capital punishment were a poor excuse to read them into the American Constitution, which didn't hold them, especially as this would force the standpoint of a minority upon America. In the same vein, Scalia opposed the Supreme Court ruling that states shall not put to death any defendant who is mentally retarded, a minor, or charged with raping a minor. With Trump as president, I believe numerous stands Scalia took with regard to the aforementioned amendments will undergo modification.

References

Burrus, T. (2016, February 13). RIP: Was Justice Scalia the Last Great Supreme Court Justice? Retrieved February 02, 2017, from https://www.cato.org/blog/rip-was-justice-scalia-last-great-supreme-court-justice

Knox, O. (2016, February 13). Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies. Retrieved February 02, 2017, from https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-scalia-dies-222420293.html

Slattery, E., Bibas, S., Blackman, J., & Garnett, R. (2016). Conservative Policy Research and Analysis. The Legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia: Remembering a Conservative Legal Titan's Impact on the Law. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/08/the-legacy-of-justice-antonin-scalia-remembering-a-conservative-legal-titans-impact-on-the-law

(1994). The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Scalia - Fifth Amendment 'Clearly Permits the Death Penalty' - NYTimes.com. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/23/us/scalia-fifth-amendment-clearly-permits-the-death-penalty.html