Antonin Scalia

University of Chicago Law Review Special Issue on Justice Scalia

Featuring the Solicitor General of the United States, Judge Amy Barrett, many others, and ... me.


The University of Chicago Law Review has just published a special issue devoted to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was a professor at Chicago for years until he became a judge (and then, of course a Supreme Court Justice). It includes short rembrances by friends and former clerks of the Justice, and a series of scholarly articles on Justice Scalia's work.

The table of contents is below:

Volume 84 Special Issue: Justice Antonin Scalia (1936–2016)

In Memoriam

Some Reflections on Justice Scalia
Lillian R. BeVier

Justice Scalia: Constitutional Conservative
Noel J. Francisco

Coots, Loons, and Civility
Taylor A.R. Meehan

The Education of a Law Clerk, with Thanks to Justice Scalia
Andrew J. Nussbaum

The Forthrightness of Justice Scalia
Ryan J. Walsh


Congressional Insiders and Outsiders
Amy Coney Barrett

Originalism as a Constraint on Judges
William Baude

Scalia in the Casebooks
Brian T. Fitzpatrick & Paulson K. Varghese

Justice Scalia's Other Standing Legacy
Tara Leigh Grove

Confronting Crawford: Justice Scalia, the Judicial Method, and the Adjudicative Limits of Originalism
Gary Lawson

Remembering the Boss
Jonathan F. Mitchell

Originalist Law Reform, Judicial Departmentalism, and Justice Scalia
Kevin C. Walsh

NEXT: Your Information Is Criminal! Incompetent! Unchaste!

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. From “Coots, Loons, and Civility”;

    Sure, the Justice often acknowledged that he might like a case to come out a particular way. But that was not the task at hand. For him, dictionaries or historical evidence relevant to the original understanding of constitutional or statutory provisions were the means of answering the question presented; there was no working backward from what he thought the answer should be.

    I really find it hard to reconcile that with his work in the Heller case, given my acquaintance with the historical evidence. And, I recall from my copy of “A Matter of Interpretation” that he regarded himself as, at most, a faint hearted originalist.

    But, nobody gets their idea Justice on the Supreme court. Well, except for the lucky 9, I suppose. Scalia was better than most.

    1. That’s a misunderstanding of what he meant by “faint hearted originalist.” He meant that he placed more value on precedent than, e.g., Thomas — not that he interpreted the constitution non-originally.

      1. If you rule against origialism due to precedent, even in cases where the originalist ruling wouldn’t violate precedent, but merely not extend it, your originalism is very faint hearted indeed. Faint hearted enough to scarcely matter.

        That’s what Scalia did with P&I, and the right to keep and bear arms. He threw away a perfectly good opportunity to take a small step in the direction of originalism. Not that this was his only sin against originalism in the case, of course.

  2. Your article is good. Haidts The Righteous Mind is relevant to constraint. Choosing any single methodology may be the most important thing, so the judge can’t pick and choose to get the answer he wants, for both internal and external reasons. we fool ourselves. Of course, pragmatism doesn’t count as a methodology.

  3. If you need some assistance with writing college assignments – check This article would help you to create the best essay in your class!

  4. If you need some assistance with writing college assignments – check This article would help you to create the best essay in your class!

Please to post comments