A Tribute to Scalia, Live From the Supreme Court

Being the one branch of government most removed from the chattering masses (the internet, in other words), the Supreme Court had never once held a live video webcast—until Friday afternoon, that is.

The Supreme Court Bar honored Justice Antonin Scalia with grateful tribute from his former clerks—the Clerkaratti, as he called them. The memorial streamed on supremecourt.gov and on C-SPAN, an unprecedented openness “shocking” to one longtime Supreme Court transparency advocate. The contents of Clerkaratti’s tributes, though, only showed how well the event’s openness fit the much-admired style of its honoree.

Kristin A. Linsley, a 1989 clerk and now a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, remembered her loyal friend and indispensable mentor’s open-mindedness on the rare occasion that she or another of his clerks convinced him to reconsider a case.

“He wanted us to question, to test his views, and help him get it right,” she said, “This was not personal, that this was not about his ego or ours.” And the intellectual clarity of his textual approach, she noted, has made federal law “more predictable, evenhanded and open to non-specialists.”

Time Warner’s general counsel Paul T. Cappuccio described conferences in Scalia’s chambers, boisterous affairs in which the clerks and the justice would “debate the upcoming week’s cases, often loudly, always passionately, and usually puncuated by the justice’s infectious laughter.”

The Clerkaratti (they’ve earned the title, having argued one of every four Supreme Court cases in the last term, Cappuccio said) lovingly counted their debts to the master linguist.

In the February 29th issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Andrew Ferguson praised Justice Scalia’s writerly gifts, and his vivid humor:

I dip at random into a collection of his opinions and find a rebuke to justices who assess the meaning of a law, not by what it says, but by its legislative history, the political circumstances that led to its enactment—a loosey-goosey method that allows judges to do a little legislating themselves. Scalia’s images sharpened his point: “We do not judge statutes as if we are surveying the scene of an accident; each one is reviewed not on the basis of how much worse it could have been but on the basis of what it says.” And so did his gift for caricature, in the next sentence: “It matters not whether this enactment was the product of the most partisan alignment in history or whether, upon its passage, the Members all linked arms and sang, ‘The more we get together, the happier we’ll be.’ ” In the mind’s eye a reader moves from a wreckage-strewn highway to a campfire singalong with Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and somehow never loses track of the argument: good work for a single paragraph.

Law students love it, George Washington University law professor Bradford R. Clark told those of us who’d tuned in. Through their study of his lively arguments, Scalia continues to “mix it up with law students,” always a favorite pastime, Clark said.

Cappuccio recalled comparing his mentor’s legacy to a star so big and bright it alters all others’ orbits. “When I finished [speaking], he looked at me with that look of equal parts slyness, contempt, self-satisfaction, and affection and said, ‘You are wanting to describe me as a large mass?'” Justice Scalia “routinely won the Court’s funniest justice as judged by the court reporter’s need to note ‘laughter’ in the oral argument transcript,” Cappuccio added. There, the C-SPAN transcript notes “laughter.”

During the memorial, more laughter echoed through the marble hall than there may have ever been in so serious a setting—more laughter than there’s been since February, anyway.

Related Content