Today in Supreme Court History: March 11, 1936

3/11/1936: Justice Antonin Scalia's birthday.

Justice Antonin Scalia

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335 (decided March 11, 1968): defendant can seek habeas relief as to conviction on one charge (here, murder, allegedly coerced confession) even though due to not appealing other charge (aggravated assault) he would still be in prison if relief granted

Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (decided March 11, 1968): striking down on Fourteenth Amendment grounds Alabama statute requiring segregation in prisons

Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 294 U.S. 720 (decided March 11, 1935): Court won’t rule on seizure of land by new Mexican government (which seized power in 1913 coup); should sue in Mexico (good luck with the coup-installed judiciary!)

Martin v. District of Columbia, 205 U.S. 135 (decided March 11, 1907): upholds Act of Congress as to compensation due when land is taken to widen street, even though the statute, the trial judge, and the jury were confused as to how to calculate

Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (decided March 11, 1912): using ink other than that specified for rotary mimeograph violated mimeo patent (overruled by Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 1917) (my crisis center in the 1980’s had a rotary mimeo — donated by a volunteer, a bona fide CPUSA member who used it in her Bolshevik leafletting days — we inked it up with an old T-shirt and spun away, our fingers inky for days afterward)

The Argo, 15 U.S. 287 (decided March 11, 1817): “De bene esse” depositions create testimony admissible in court despite the witness being available. (I have done these in New Jersey, with examining physicians.) Here, in an original jurisdiction case, Marshall agrees with the Attorney General (and disagrees with Daniel Webster) in holding that the Judiciary Act of 1789, allowing for d.b.e., does not apply to proceedings in the Supreme Court; testimony of non-parties can only be taken in a Court proceeding (I assume in front of a Special Master).

United States v. Int’l Union United Auto, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 352 U.S. 567 (decided March 11, 1957): Corrupt Practices Act (18 U.S.C. §610) supersedes First Amendment and effectively prohibits using union dues to pay for political TV ads (pretty much overruled by Citizens United, 2010)

Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, 352 U.S. 599 (decided March 11, 1957): alien eligible for deportation because did not report for military duty (violation of 8 U.S.C. §1426); applied for exemption but did not follow through

Pence v. United States, 316 U.S. 332 (decided March 11, 1942): Government refused to pay on life insurance policy, alleging that the insured (a physician) had lied on his application for reinstatement after policy was suspended due to not paying premium; specifically he stated that he had never been treated for “any disease of the throat, heart or stomach”. A parade of evidence was introduced showing that he had all kinds of things wrong with him. The widow was not aware of this and he had led an active life. She won a jury verdict. Here the Court holds that fraud was so overwhelming that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the Government’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.

Alaska Packers Ass’n v. Industrial Accident Commission, 294 U.S. 532 (decided March 11, 1935): Hired in California to work in Alaska, to return after end of salmon canning season. Agreed to be bound by Alaska law (which prohibited worker’s compensation). Injured in Alaska. Court holds that California statute ordering employer to pay compensation does not violate Due Process or Full Faith and Credit clauses.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(I assume in front of a Special Master)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Delgado#/media/File:Roger_Delgado_in_The_Mind_of_Evil.jpg

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've seen that "you expect me to believe this shit??" face on judges all too often.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Heh heh, but you *are* aware that Roger Delgado was the *best* Master?

[Drewski]

I'm sorry, what does any of this have to do with Scalia's special day? Today isn't about Wainwright or whoever. They can celebrate on their own birthday.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every day featuring some bigotry, unearned privilege, or stale thinking is a special day in the world of Antonin Scalia and his fans.

[Drewski]

Gosh, that really added something to the joke. Specifically, it added an indication that you should get out more and spend less time online.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Poor Justice Scalia (Emeritus? Former? What do you call a justice after he dies in office?) is probably rolling in his grave because of the current big-money-bribe-owned SCOTUS.

[gVOR08]

You'd call him the late Justice Scalia. Why would he be rolling over in his grave? He probably got more than his share of the graft.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Antonin Scalia was a well-rounded bigot.

A misogynist. (Violence against women to male-only admissions; single-sex juries to economic discrimination.)

A superstitious gay-basher. Of all Scalia's bigotries, this seemed the most intense. Romer v. Evans. Lawrence v. Texas. His inability to avoid bashing gays at every plausible opportunity.

A racist. (From Shelby County to a Chicago classroom; voter suppression to affirmative action; his comments concerning Fisher v. University of Texas to his (private, he hoped) comments concerning a Bush v. Gore footnote.)

A xenophobe. U.S. v. Arizona.

Antonin Scalia's lifelong, intense, unreconstructed bigotry (well, he tried to walk some of it back a couple of times over the decades) will be the enduring element of his legacy. It should be, because he eagerly ditched originalism when it got between him and an intolerant, right-wing ruling favoring unearned privilege, old-timey bigotry, or older-timey superstition. (Someone observed that his originalism was inconsistent but his bigotry was not.)