Every lawyer I know concedes that Scalia was in fact brilliant

[Recursion]

Even some who argued before him and had him eviscerate them; it made him that much worse to them. But he was no ponderous rock; he could think faster than you could, make your argument better than you could before you did, and then reach way back to some obscure precedent you had never thought applicable and explain pretty convincingly it was.

Here's an experiment: pick one of his dissents (those were always better than his majority opinions) on a very dry non-political subject (something procedural where you have no emotional dog in the fight). You may be surprised at how irritatingly good he is at cutting straight to the point (the problem came when he showed he was equally good at avoiding points he didn't like -- those same lawyers also charge that he treated the bench as if he were still a litigator, and they are right). He did a lot of damage, which was only possible because he was in fact a damn good lawyer.

Anyways, let the dead rest I guess; this certainly shakes things up. Just wanted to say that while the tempest about Democrats not pissing on a man's corpse continues.

[Wounded Bear]

1. If he was a genius, he was an evil one....nt

[fried eggs]

4. exactly

[GaYellowDawg]

2. Unfortunately...

Like courage, brilliance in the wrong cause is no virtue.

[elleng]

3. He was smart,

and way out on dead limbs re: Constitutional interpretation, imo.

[msanthrope]

5. Wrong side of the force. nt

[MohRokTah]

6. In latter years, his dissents and decisions got more and more weird.

Bordering on some form of dimentia in some of his more recent writings.

[Recursion]

7. I haven't read many recent ones, but back when I was applying to law schools

I got into reading them. They were fun.

[Ms. Toad]

19. These two sum up my conversation with my (law) student today.

He was brilliant - a few years ago in almost every opinion, unless it involved anything homosexual. When that issue came up, he could barely contain the spittle flying from his mouth.

But as much as I vehemently disagreed with him on many, many opinions (and dissents), they were brilliant and scrupulously supported by legal precedent (or when there was none, a small logical progression (albeit in the opposite direction I would wish the court had moved.

But - in recent years - there has been a shift toward more irrationality, where he can't seem to overcome his emotional bias in order to draft a solid legal opinion or dissent.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. and bat shit crazy

he did not believe in evolution and said it was a "bad idea"

[rug]

9. What btilliance led him to argue that executing the emotionally disabled is not cruel and unusual?

In a dissent.

[OrwellwasRight]

10. Meh.

I'm a lawyer and I thought his writing never lived up to the hype. He sometimes wrote ponderously, burying the holding. And he sold himself as an Originalist far more than he lived up to it, particularly on his decisions eviscerating the Fourth Amendment.

I'm would not quibble with his intelligence or his knowledge os case law. But his writing? I've never agreed it was stellar.

[morningfog]

11. That's just it. He was intelligent enough to convincingly come out anywhere

he wanted. He could work backwards and do it with sound logic (although he was getting a little loose the past couple years). That he could take the law anywhere at all yet took it where he choose is what made him so bad. He really was a unique jurist.

I loathed him. But, he got it right a few times. On the 4th amendment he had some very good opinions. It was when I agreed with him that I most appreciated his ability and realized that he really could just go where he wanted. If his brain had been liberal, there is no telling where we'd be.

But he was a bigoted ass and I am grateful to never have to read another new Scalia decision.

[Major Nikon]

12. He wasn't brilliant enough to do that much damage

The damage he did do was simply because he could be relied upon to take the far right position on everything. Thomas is no different in that regard.

The reality was that Scalia just wasn't that effective. Even Scalia himself admitted he just didn't win that many battles.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. Are you SERious????

December 12, 2000 ring a bell?

[Recursion]

14. He was in the minority much more often than the majority, is the point (nt)

[Major Nikon]

16. Which makes Scalia no more damaging than the other 4 justices

As I said, the only really defining thing about Scalia was he could always be counted on to take the far right position on everything. The reason why he was never all that effective was because he had the effect of alienating more moderate judges. That's why Scalia was not called on to write very many majority opinions on subjects that could have gone either way. Why do you think he was never taped for Chief Justice?

[HeiressofBickworth]

15. As my mother said many times about lawyers:

He is brilliant; like a rotten mackerel in the moonlight, he both shines and stinks. Originally said of a couple of his opponents by John Randolph of Roanoke in the 1820's. Still appropriate today when reflecting on Scalia.

[bhikkhu]

17. Intelligence is one thing, how you use it is another

I was just talking about this with my daughter explaining what kind of a justice he was, versus others on the bench. Most justices would, I think, take an incisive look at all the facts and precedents and make a judgement fairly naturally derived from them, even if there were personal reservations. Scalia would make a judgement in his head, then take a hard look at the facts to find what he could to support it at all costs, even if some near miracle of creative interpretation was necessary.

[TeddyR]

29. Any support for this?

[bhikkhu]

34. Its an oversimplification, but demonstrated pretty well in his marriage equality position

Some quotes from his minority view on the gay marriage decision:

"Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

...an opinion that was likely decided firmly in his head long before the case came before him, then a collection of creative mental gymnastics and brilliant rhetoric to justify it. I could be wrong about how other justices come to their decisions, but I like to think they come to the bench with careful and open minds.

[hobbit709]

18. I've known several brilliant people that I wouldn't trust around the silverware.

[Dont call me Shirley]

20. Brilliant or dark star? More like dark star, brilliance indicates light. Scalia was not light.

[meow2u3]

36. Scalia was light in the same way as was Lucifer

The Devil was once an angel of light, hence the name Lucifer. Both evil.

[former9thward]

21. As a law student I took one course from Scalia.

It was a summer course at George Mason University. At the end of the course Scalia took three of us out for dinner at a Italian restaurant in Arlington, Va. He gave us off the record stuff about how the SC works. During the entire course he never referred to notes once. Love him or hate him he was a brilliant mind. A few months ago I was at a luncheon of about 1000 lawyers in Phoenix where Scalia was the guest speaker. He told jokes about the court and D.C. and had the entire audience laughing for an hour.

[Logical]

22. I personally couldn't stand listening to him for an hour, he is pure evil. But.....

I assume lawyers don't give a shit.

[former9thward]

23. Yes, I get that.

But I try to put politics a side. I am not some one who boycotts actors or businesses because of politics.

[Logical]

24. Please! Actors don't carry the power of a SC member! I think lawyers have....

too much love for other lawyers.

[former9thward]

25. I destest lawyers.

Most of them are self-important jerks. I am fortunate financially in life that since I became a member of the bar I have never accepted one penny from a client. The law sucks and I always try to steer people away from going to law school.

[Logical]

26. I love your DU profile. Sounds like you're one of the good ones! 😄

[former9thward]

30. I do my best.

But I confess to being pragmatic which some on here don't like but we have to do things that we think will work out in the end.

[Logical]

31. I imagine it's a lot tougher job than most people like me think! Nt

[elleng]

28. That's baloney,

we don't have love for other lawyers, we understand their language and their arguments maybe better than others.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Unfortunately, he used his intelligence to reason backwards

to twist the law and the facts whichever way was needed in order to arrive at the result he'd already decided he wanted.

[Warpy]

32. So was Ayn Rand. Her logic was impeccable

but it was all based on faulty premises. So was Scalia's.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Volaris]

33. No one I know ever claimed he was dumb.

But he used his Powers for far less than the Greatest Good, that's for damn sure, and also an agreed upon point.

(On edit) a perfect example is his majority opinion on the DC gun ban. Bit of Evil Genius, that was.

[jfern]

35. Well, his dissents can be fun to read, since he lost

His SSM dissent was kind of out there.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/26/12-must-read-quotes-from-scalias-blistering-same-sex-marriage-dissent/