Supreme Court

John Roberts vs. Antonin Scalia

Understanding the changing face of legal conservatism

|

Writing at The Atlantic, legal commentator Garrett Epps previews the Supreme Court's upcoming term, which he dubs the start of "the post-Scalia era." Epps' main argument is that while Justice Antonin Scalia "has been an influence, perhaps the most significant one in the past three decades," Chief Justice John Roberts is the new sheriff in town, the new conservative force to be reckoned with. This changing reality became most apparent back in June when Roberts sided with the Court's liberals and saved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from extinction.

When it comes to the big picture, Epps makes a number of good points. Scalia's influence may indeed be on the wane and Roberts' power is certainly on the rise. But when Epps goes into greater detail about these various practitioners of judicial conservatism, his arguments fly wildly off the rails. Take this passage on Scalia's diminishing influence over his newer colleagues on the bench:

Roberts and Alito, at any rate, seem impatient with originalism and eager to move into new areas like libertarian economic thought. They are glad to get Scalia's vote, but less interested in his routines from old-time radio.

Libertarian economic thought! That's a laugh riot. I would be very interested in seeing any evidence Epps might produce for this dubious assertion. I assume he's referring to the fact that Roberts and Alito both agreed that Obamacare's individual mandate exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause, an argument prominently advanced by libertarian lawyers such as Georgetown's Randy Barnett. But of course that's not an economic argument, it's a legal one, rooted in constitutional history and applicable judicial precedent.

Epps' take on Justice Clarence Thomas is equally suspect. According to Epps, Thomas is a "solid vote," one "whose position is not in doubt. They tend not to influence others." That's in contrast to Scalia, who Epps calls an influential vote, one "who by force of argument gradually reshape whole areas of law."

Scalia has had an impact, no doubt about that. But so has Thomas. In fact, we now know that Thomas has been a major influence on the Court, including on the votes of Scalia himself. As Jan Crawford reported in her superb 2007 book Supreme Conflict, which tells the inside story of the Supreme Court from the era of William Rehnquist to the appointments of Roberts and Samuel Alito, Thomas' forceful arguments reshaped things from the outset. As she writes, "After Thomas's very first conference, Scalia changed his mind to side with him in the Foucha case, and on several other occasions that term, Scalia switched his vote to join Thomas in dissent. But these maneuvers were unknown to outsiders and Court watchers."

They are apparently still unknown to some Court watchers.

The changing face of legal conservatism, both on the Supreme Court and off, is one of the most significant legal stories of our time. So it's important to get these details right.

NEXT: Nigerian Clerics Advise Against Street Demonstrations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. the new conservative force to be reckoned with.

    He and I have different understandings of what that word means.

  2. impatient with originalism and eager to move into new areas like libertarian economic thought

    We are a very long way from the point where originalism and libertarian economic thought would lead to different results. A very long way, indeed.

    1. a golden thought!

  3. One more:

    I find it bizarre to conclude that consistent, predictable Justices would be less influential on their peers than inconsistent, unpredictable Justices. Who influences your thinking more: someone who is results-oriented, mercurial, and unprincipled, or someone who consistently hews to their principles?

    1. Looking at the American electorate, I find the answer to that question to be depressing.

  4. I am betting on Scalia, even though Roberts is younger, in a cage match I bet Scalia takes him down.

  5. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone’s constitutional rights.

    The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we’ve seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.

    It is urgent that whoever can go to the Supreme Court and organize peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience protests in front of the Supreme Court ASAP to do so right away before Supreme Court Justices like Scalia will vote against the Voting Rights ACT of 1965!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.