Looking Back at Scalia's Controversial 'Long Game'
Best known for his expertise in election law, Rick Hasen's new book takes a broad view of what he sees as the inconsistencies in Scalia's decision-making.
April 30, 2018 at 05:35 PM
6 minute read
More than two years after his death, U. S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia's legacy is still a flash point of controversy—and Scalia would probably be OK with that.
Scalia, who died at age 79 in February 2016, was a happy but divisive warrior who filled his decisions and dissents—and he loved writing dissents—with sharp criticism of his colleagues, even though in person, he was a courtly Old World-style gentleman and friend to many.
Several books have come out in the wake of his death, including: “Scalia Speaks,” a praiseful collection of his writings and speeches, many of which had not been public before his death; “Nino and Me,” an intimate and not always flattering memoir by his friend and co-author Bryan Garner; and “The Unexpected Scalia,” a biography that looks at the justice's occasional liberal impulses.
Now comes perhaps the most controversial book on Scalia, “The Justice of Contradictions” by Richard Hasen, a professor of law and politicial science at the University of California, Irvine. Best known for his expertise in election law, Hasen's new book takes a broad view of what he sees as the inconsistencies in Scalia's decision-making. It has drawn criticism from former Scalia clerk Ed Whelan, who called Hasen's critique of Scalia “badly flawed.” Whelan was also co-editor of “Scalia Speaks.”
We recently interviewed Hasen about his book and his legal career:
NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL: Before we talk about your book, please recap how and when you became the Election Law blogger and the go-to guy for all things relating to election law, campaign finance, redistricting, etc.? I remember first meeting you at the Supreme Court years ago, I think, and you were already a star in the blogosphere.
RICK HASEN: I went to law school at UCLA in the late 1980s, where Dan Lowenstein was one of the handful of law professors across the country who was teaching a course in election law. I picked up the course as a professor at Chicago-Kent and loved it. I eventually joined Dan's election law casebook. I started blogging in 2003. The big issues then were whether the courts would uphold the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold law and the myriad legal issues surrounding the California recall.
NLJ: How did your success with the blog affect your academic career? Was blogging as important as writing law review articles in terms of tenure?
HASEN: I got tenure before I started blogging, and I would not recommend extensive blogging or tweeting as the path to tenure. I see the blog as part of my teaching and public service mission, particularly when I can help explain Supreme Court cases and legal developments to a wider audience.
NLJ: How and why did you move into a different lane, so to speak, with the Scalia book, when your past books have been about election law?
HASEN: I have long been fascinated by Justice Scalia. He was not influential by the typical measures, such as writing a great number of majority opinions in the major cases, or by being a swing justice. Instead, it was the sheer force of his ideas and the strength and style of his writing which earned him outsized influence over both how lawyers and judges decide cases and how they talk. I found the subject irresistible, especially given what I see as the fundamental contradiction of his jurisprudence and role as a public intellectual—he delegitimized the court by denigrating his colleagues all in the name of legitimating the court.
NLJ: You call Scalia a disrupter. In the other branches of government, a disrupter can shake things up. But at the Supreme Court, a disrupter who antagonizes his colleagues can lose votes and end up not winning majorities. I have often thought that Scalia at some point decided he would rather throw bombs from the sidelines than win cases. Do you agree, and why do you think he took that course?
HASEN: I argue that Scalia disrupted the Supreme Court the way Newt Gingrich disrupted the House of Representatives and Trump is disrupting the presidency. He changed the institution. He attacked the other justices, not simply on an ad hominem basis, but by claiming that the other justices were doing politics while he was doing law. He convinced an entire generation of conservative and libertarian law students and lawyers that his way is the only principled way to decide cases. He may not have won over Kennedy, but he's changed the farm team in ways that will affect the next generation. He was playing the long game.
NLJ: Even before Scalia died, Justice Kagan said, “We are all textualists” because of him. You point out that he invoked textualist principles when it suited him and sometimes ignored textualism altogether when it didn't. Do you think textualism will recede or weaken without Scalia at the helm?
HASEN: The textualist approach to statutory interpretation is Scalia's most enduring legacy, much more than his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. Kagan's remark shows that in ordinary case, textualist tools will do a lot of the work. So judges are much more apt to turn to dictionaries and rules of grammar as a start than a Senate committee report. But many still will look at legislative history, and, in hard cases with an ideological valence, textualism will no more constrain judges than more eclectic approaches to interpretation.
NLJ: You wrote in Slate that Scalia's legacy is only getting stronger in death, even though, as you put it, his decisions were “driven more by ideology than methodology.” Why is his legacy getting stronger?
HASEN: I say at the beginning of the book that Justice Scalia was a polarizing justice in polarized times. He has been deified by the right, and conservative orthodoxy believes that he had found the one true path to interpret the Constitution and statutes. On the left, he's been villainized, and justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead are treated as royalty. Scalia helped create the modern polarized judicial celebrity.
NLJ: You say that Justice Gorsuch has tried to emulate Scalia in some ways. How so, and how do you think Gorsuch is doing so far?
HASEN: Gorsuch has pledged fidelity to Scalia's methodology, and decided early cases using it. He's also made snarky remarks like Scalia suggesting that other justices who disagree with him are doing politics, not law. What's missing is Scalia's charm. I think a lot of people miss that.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Justice Antonin Scalia's age.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—DC Diversity Initiative of the Year
The 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Litigation Departments of the Year
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250