Antonin Scalia, Biglaw, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court, United Kingdom / Great Britain, Women's Issues

Of Biglaw, Nazis, and Princes

Some of the week's big events in review.

By  
on

2. Antonin Scalia is just an internet troll.

Antonin Scalia writes some amusingly snarky opinions. Technically, all the justices do, but Scalia’s have always exuded a little more zest than his colleagues’.

But that spark of wit flew out the window over last weekend when Justice Scalia spoke to the Utah Bar Association about all those liberal judges out there. He titled this talk — about his colleagues, remember — “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters” (a title he’s used for a few years now). And that’s ultimately not the most offensive thing he spouts off.

According to the Aspen Times, this happened:

Scalia opened his talk with a reference to the Holocaust, which happened to occur in a society that was, at the time, “the most advanced country in the world.” One of the many mistakes that Germany made in the 1930s was that judges began to interpret the law in ways that reflected “the spirit of the age.” When judges accept this sort of moral authority, as Scalia claims they’re doing now in the U.S., they get themselves and society into trouble.

Germany was the most advanced country in the world in the 1930s? I mean, they were just coming off a period of hyperinflation that would make Zimbabwe blush and had been impoverished by WWI reparations. But, sure, Germany was advanced, let’s pretend that because Justice Scalia tells us so.

But how unhinged was Scalia in front of this crowd to fall into Godwin’s Law. Fun fact, despite what most people think, Godwin’s Law (which technically only applies online) actually just says that someone will inevitably invoke Hitler or the Holocaust, not that doing so means the argument is lost. The latter point is actually Reductio ad Hitlerum that characterizes a Hitler reference as a logical fallacy.

Sponsored

But I digress, Justice Scalia decided to compare his colleagues to Nazis because he loves democracy:

Scalia cited numerous issues that have been thrown to the courts — a woman’s right to an abortion, society’s right to execute someone for a crime, whether “homosexual sodomy” ought to be allowed — and claimed that judges are unqualified to answer them. Medical doctors, engineers, ethicists and even “Joe Six Pack” would be just as qualified as a legal professional to settle some issues that have come before the high court.

Instead, he said, society at large should set its own moral standards. For example, when women’s suffrage became an issue in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Supreme Court wasn’t asked to interpret the Constitution. Congress responded to public pressure by giving women the right to vote.

“We understood in 1920 that the Equal Protection Clause meant today what it meant when it was adopted,” he said. “We did what the Constitution required — we adopted the 19th Amendment.”

See, Scalia just believes in a dead Constitution and letting the democratic process work itself out and letting the chips fall where they may.

 

Maybe he was just confused because Justice Ginsburg looks like such a hipster in that neck doily and granny glasses. And everyone knows that Hitler was the original hipster.

Sponsored

3. On a cold and gray London mornin/an exceptionally wealthy little baby child is born/In the palace.

Jumping from referring to Nazis to a family that likes to dress up as Nazis.

The British royal family, a family sitting on over $10 billion and still collecting about $55 million in taxpayer money every year, announced the joyous birth of a future king. Say hello to George Alexander Louis, the most anticipated child in the UK since the Boy Who Lived. He’ll someday be George VII (unless his grandfather decides to do that — fun fact!).

I don’t particularly care about the baby because I’m from Amercia. But some folks do care and they went on TV to be stupid.

Like Victoria Arbiter:

Or Tina Brown:

OK, so girls are icky.

Obviously, Arbiter is right, women used to get a lot of grief for failing to produce a male heir. And if they were married to Henry VIII they could even get Ned Starked. But not only did Kate Middleton have a very high likelihood of surviving having a girl, there wasn’t even a reason to care at all. That’s because the rules governing the monarchy had changed and a female baby was still going to become the future monarch. Something that must have escaped the notice of a couple of people brought on TV to talk SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BABY.

You can take the patriarchy out of the law, but you can’t take the dimwits off cable news coverage.

Pre-jump

Earlier: Lawyer Begs For Job Via Mass Email, Includes Picture of His Toned Arms — Because Why Not?
Pooping On The Po-Po: Colorful Allegations Against An Attorney

The End of Biglaw

The Last Days of Big Law: You can’t imagine the terror when the money dries up [The New Republic]
New Republic Reporter Defends BigLaw-Is-Dying Article [Bloomberg Law via YouTube]

Earlier: Is Being A Partner The Worst Job In Biglaw?
Which Way Will You Run? Some Thoughts On The New Republic Article About Mayer Brown
Being A Partner Isn’t The ‘Worst Job In Biglaw’ — Being A Pregnant Associate Is

Scalia and Nazis

With Invocation Of Nazi Germany, Scalia Loses Debate Over Constitution [Constitutional Accountability Center]
The ‘intensifying’ art of the dissent [Washington Post]
In Snowmass, Justice Antonin Scalia says judges should not be policymakers [Aspen Times]

Earlier: If The Constitution Ever Came To Life, Scalia Would Be The Man To Kill It

The King’s Gurgle

Royal baby name revealed: George Alexander Louis [CBS News]

Earlier: The Royal Baby Could Make Legal History

« Previous 1 2

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,