Stevens v. Scalia
Now that retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens no longer has to see his former colleague Justice Antonin Scalia in the lunchroom every day, he's free to tell tales out of the top court, which he did earlier this month in a speech criticizing Scalia's handling of a case from 1991.
Now that retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens no longer has to see his former colleague Justice Antonin Scalia in the lunchroom every day, he’s free to tell tales out of the top court, which he did earlier this month in a speech criticizing Scalia’s handling of a case from 1991. –KA
Rooted in Truth.ABA Journal:
Speaking at the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Stevens took aim at Scalia for his 1991 opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan upholding a mandatory life sentence for possession of 672 grams of cocaine, the National Law Journal reports.
According to Stevens, Scalia said the Eighth Amendment does not require the punishment to fit the crime. “Under his reasoning, since imprisonment is not categorically cruel or unusual, a life sentence for a parking violation would not have violated the Eighth Amendment,” Stevens said in the speech (PDF).
Independent by Design.
Your support helps ensure that rigorous reporting, thoughtful analysis, and investigative journalism remain accessible to everyone.
Support independent journalism.
Courts & Law
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.