A cranky Lawrence O'Donnell on Monday lashed out at the "terrible" Antonin Scalia, deriding the Supreme Court justice for his "wacky," bad writing. O'Donnell wondered if the conservative is "now the Donald Trump of the Supreme Court?"
O'Donnell hosted a panel discussion on Scalia's dissents over ObamaCare and gay marriage. The liberal host complained, "...These are just terrible bits that he is sticking into these opinions and terrible thinker. And they are combined, you know, in that wacky reference he made the other day."
Even one of O'Donnell's guests, Emily Bazelon from Yale University couldn't get behind this idea that Scalia is somehow dumb: "I am going to stick up for him as a writer, however. He uses rhetorical excess and flourish to enormous effect."
Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times reporter on the Court, derided:
LINDA GREENHOUSE: So my reaction, Lawrence, is that, you know, beyond the court jester's stuff and the rhetoric stuff, here is a man who is approaching 80 years old. He has been on the Supreme Court for a long time, and he has failed. His project has failed. He has failed to persuade his fellow justices to adopt his view of constitutional interpretation, so-called originalism. I mean, look at the marriage decision that has nothing to do with originalism. He has failed to persuade his fellow justices to accept his view of interpreting statutes.
A partial transcript is below:
Last Word
6/29/15
10:27
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Coming up, is Justice Antonin Scalia now the Donald Trump of the Supreme Court?10:33
O'DONNELL: Joining us now Linda Greenhouse, Journalist in Residence at Yale Law School and former "New York Times" Supreme Court Reporter, and Emily Bazelon, Senior Writer Scholar in Law at Yale Law School and a staff writer at the "New York Times" Magazine.
Emily, from where I sit, judicial scholarship aside, Scalia is proving himself to be a terrible writer. I mean, these are just terrible bits that he is sticking into these opinions and terrible thinker. And they are combined, you know, in that wacky reference he made the other day to, you know, just ask, you know, the next hippie you run into, as if that can explain American society today. What is going on with this guy?EMILY BAZELON (SENIOR WRITER SCHOLAR IN LAW AT YALE LAW SCHOOL): Well, I agree that Scalia has gone over the top in these end-of-term opinions. I am going to stick up for him as a writer, however. He uses rhetorical excess and flourish to enormous effect.
O'DONNELL: Badly, though. I mean this is where it just going to have a stylish disagreement. Yes, he does that, and I think all of his choices in that territory, lately, are bad.
BAZELON: He gets his point across, though, and he gets quoted. He gets attention, which is clearly one of the things that he is after, and also aside from the rhetorical access, he does make his point clear along the way. He knows how to build an argument.
O'DONNELL: Linda Greenhouse, what is your reaction to what has become of Justice Scalia in the last few days?
GREENHOUSE: So my reaction, Lawrence, is that, you know, beyond the court jester's stuff and the rhetoric stuff, here is a man who is approaching 80 years old. He has been on the Supreme Court for a long time, and he has failed. His project has failed. He has failed to persuade his fellow justices to adopt his view of constitutional interpretation, so-called originalism. I mean look at the marriage decision that has nothing to do with originalism. He has failed to persuade his fellow justices to accept his view of interpreting statutes, look at the health care decision from last week which he dissented that rejected his view of statutes. And, you know, if you are really going to list the accomplishments of Justice Antonin Scalia, they are very few and far between. Beyond the Second Amendment, I actually cannot think of any. So, you know, he is angry, and I understand that; but I do not think he is doing himself, his legacy or the Supreme Court any good with this nonsensical talk.
O'DONNELL: Yes, I mean, Emily, if you compare any 800 words of Scalia lately to any Op-Ed piece by George Will. I mean, Will is an elegant writer. You can disagree as much as you want, but he is an elegant writer. The word choice is careful. He is deliberated on it. It is rare that you get a hunk of George Will that you say, "Boy, that really sounds silly." I mean, it is not that hard with a Supreme Court Justice with clerks working for him to come out with opinions that read well.
BAZELON: Well, Linda, as always, is right about the way in which I think Scalia is doing a disservice to his own legacy and perhaps to the court. And, I think she is also right that he is revealing a deep frustration about the turn that this term has taken, other major decisions and the whole motive interpreting the constitution that he has supported has really gone by the wayside.
O'DONNELL: Well, look at, Linda, by contrast, Justice Breyer's frustration with the death penalty, which he has finally turned against after years of playing with it as Supreme Court Justices do over time. And, his very passionate and heartfelt and frustrated dissent about that was very well written and very logically presented.
GREENHOUSE: Yes, he has got -- he whips the four aspects of the death penalty that he thinks justify a serious examination. And, just to be clear, you know, he and Justice Ginsburg in that opinion did not actually come out and say they are against the death penalty. What they said was there were enough questions about it. We have had 40 years of having reinstated the death penalty in 1976, and it is time that we step back and take a good look at whether it is constitutional. It was a very thoughtful, long-in-the-making, very well-argued dissenting opinion that the two of them submitted today.
