Sure, they claim to be 'unpersuaded' but with a conclusion like this it is difficult for the folks at Slate to backtrack:
Without a really compelling legal theory from the court's liberals, and with his new willingness to be open and expansive for the cameras, it was virtually guaranteed that once Scalia uncorked his considerable charisma, his constitutional methods would appear to be the most plausible approach, if not the only one. Scalia has mastered the art of persuading by simply being. If that isn't a chapter in his new book, it should be.
[Link]
And all it took was a book tour. Nino, what took you so long?
Explore The Conservative Blog Network
I think Scalia's jurisprudence has proved to be the most consistent of any presently on the Court (except perhaps Thomas). His opinions are not only humorous and at times vitriolic, but appropriately so, they are incredibly insightful and well-reasoned. Reading his dissents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (giving a clear explanation why you should follow the Constitution when the case implicates express language in the document), Casey v. Planned Parenthood (arguably his best dissent upholding common sense in approaching judicial decisions), and others lets you see the consistency and sophistication of his decisions. Even my Con Law professor, devoted to O'Connoresque "jurisprudence," admitted that Scalia should be lauded for his consistent presentation of a clear jurisprudence. There are notable exceptions to his clarity, but that is to be expected in a 20+ year tenure on the Court.
All that being said, I would love to see a former Scalia clerk join his mentor on the bench one day. News is that Paul Clement - a veritable hero of mine - will resign on June 2. Perhaps he'll be back in the Court before too long.
Fair point, my friend. My personal admiration of Nino stems from his reverence for the separation of powers,and for his consistent revolt against judicial activism. The activist in me would recite a trite slogan about legislation and benches- but I will refrain.
As you note, his tenure on the court is not without its inconsistencies. But I think it's worth mentioning that most of the perceived inconsistencies are the mere product of a flawed application of originalism- as opposed to the flawed approach to jurisprudence taken by the Court's more activists members.
Were to offer a critique of Scalia it would be that his sarcasm gets annoying from opinion to opinion. Stand-up comedy is best left to Late Night TV in my opinion. Yet, as Slate notes, it is exactly this accessibility which endears him to so many.
I think it's fairly clear that originalism is here to stay. I suspect as it becomes more fully developed, we will see that lines of division emanate not from whether or not the text should be evaluated for its meaning, but from differences in how we apply the meaning inferred.
Tory - Regarding Scalia's use of humor in his opinions, I have heard him mention on a number of occasions that he does so specifically because that will make people want to read them. It certainly makes him endearing, and if people in the general population pick up his opinions, all the better. He hopes that getting people to read an interesting opinion will be a subtle way of spreading originalism. I've heard the same from Alex Kozinski (9th Cir.), another hero of mine. He writes opinions that are often chocked full of humor, literary references, and even one opinion with over 200 movie titles in the opinion text (just because one party was a movie studio). He's quirky, but he said that making opinions interesting makes them more likely to be read and - his main goal - more likely to get into law textbooks so that he can influence aspiring lawyers and jurists. Frankly, after reading all that we have, I appreciate a Scalia or Kozinski for their legal analysis with a flair.