First published 2014 – Business Wolf
During a recent interview with advocate and author Joel Cohen, the federal appeals judge harshly criticized U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The interview was published by the American Barr Association.
Richard Posner, a prominent judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh circuit in Chicago mentioned about his bitter and unravelled status with Scalia.
Posner wasn’t bothered when Scalia called him a liar for criticizing his book released in 2012 book “Reading Law: The Interpreta12tion of Legal Texts.”
Posner lamented “He’s (Scalia) excitable and prone to anger.” The book review of “The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia,” which was published in the New Republic ignited such reaction. He also told Cohen that the magazine’s editor picked the “adversarial” title without his consent, although he took responsibility for it.
Posner defended his book review by saying:
“Scalia wrote a book about judicial interpretation. His book had errors. I connect that in part to the fact that in the front of the book there are acknowledgments of assistance from more than 90 people, including a number of law students. My guess is that much of the book was written by research assistants and was not effectively checked. I’m not saying the authors are dire people – that they’re rapacious or that they are being dishonest. I’m saying that the book is erroneous.”
Cohen had a query whether he was alarmed that his write ups could influence Scalia’s perception when examining Posner’s legal decisions in court. Posner was doubtful, since Scalia just verified a decision a few weeks ago that Posner had mentioned.
Posner was of the view that He (Scalia) disliked him and held a bad opinion about him. But, he did not anticipate that it would rather affect his decisions. He also added that, the stakes are too elevated. I would be very surprised if he’d allow a personal loathe for a judge to persuade his perception.
In another article published in Slate, Posner wrote that “Justice Scalia is famously outspoken.” Posner elaborated on that comment in his interview with Cohen. “I think from a public relations standpoint, it would be better for the Supreme Court justices to take a lower profile – talk less on the bench and participate less in mock trials and other celebrity-type activities,” he said.
According to FedSoc Blog, Posner and Scalia’s cold dispute’s foundation is due to some conflicting beliefs about judging. Posner laid emphasis on the significance of making sensible legal opinions that pertain to the real world and disapproves of Scalia for following lawful text too closely while neglecting practical consequences.
Scalia advocates an original method for judging cases. He is of the view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its novel, meaning at the time of enactment. He openly disagrees with Justice Scalia’s philosophy.
Posner also proposed, the fact that they were old friends, and due to recent incidents, their friendship suffered. The relationship with Scalia is suffering as a result of their argumentative comments.