Follow HLS on
The Globe and Mail
Scalia didn’t score the touchdowns. He redefined the playing field
An op-ed by Laurence Tribe:
Suffice it to say that in spite of our disagreements, I invariably found Justice Scalia’s thinking and prodding to be brilliantly generative of important insights into the way law and legal interpretation ought to proceed. Even though I debated the justice repeatedly – both in academic settings, like my response to his Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Princeton University (resulting in his 1997 book, A Matter of Interpretation), and in oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where I appeared before him and his colleagues dozens of times over the course of his 30-year tenure – I never ceased to enjoy the encounters immensely and never failed to benefit hugely from them, even when his inherent advantage left a bittersweet aftertaste. He was, after all, a U.S. Supreme Court justice and wielded a vote on that august tribunal and great influence within it, while I was a mere scholar and advocate.
Wall Street Journal
Without Justice Scalia, Oral Arguments Will Lose a Bit of Their Bite
....“Justice Scalia took no prisoners,” said Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus
. “When you prepared for oral argument, you tended to focus tremendously on him because he could transform an argument.” Mr. Lazarus, who served in the U.S. solicitor general’s office when Justice Scalia joined the court in 1986, said he and other government lawyers watched as the justice on his first day peppered question after demanding question at Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler, a former Scalia colleague, in a case about Indian lands. Justice Lewis Powell during the session turned to colleague Thurgood Marshall and quietly said, “Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?” according to a Powell biography.
Lawrence Lessig: Scalia set a principled example
An op-ed by Lawrence Lessig:
Justice Antonin Scalia was an “originalist” committed to interpreting the Constitution in the way it would have been understood at the time it was adopted. He was also a conservative who was, as any of us are regardless of our politics, committed to particular outcomes that he hoped the law would support. Sometimes that originalism would conflict with conservatism. As a clerk for Scalia in the early 1990s, and the only liberal clerk in the chamber, I watched him struggle with that conflict. In every case that I knew in my time as a clerk, however reluctantly, in the end Scalia followed originalism, whether the result was conservative or not.
Justice Scalia, The Last Originalist
An op-ed by Noah Feldman:
Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t invent originalism. The credit for that on the modern Supreme Court goes to Justice Hugo Black, who developed t
he approach to constitutional interpretation as a liberal tool to make the states comply with the Bill of Rights. But Scalia did more to bring originalism into the conservative mainstream than any other Supreme Court justice. In fact, his role as the godfather of the conservative constitutional rebirth of the 1980s and ’90s derived from his originalist advocacy. But will Scalia’s originalist legacy last? Can the philosophy outlive the man? There is reason to doubt it -- because Scalia is literally irreplaceable, and because the younger conservative justices aren’t originalists of the same stripe.
Standing, Administrative Law Define Scalia’s Legacy
Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly Feb. 13 while on vacation at a West Texas resort, authored nearly two dozen majority opinions and a dozen dissents in environmental law cases during his 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. ... Richard J. Lazarus
, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that Scalia “was probably environmental law’s greatest skeptic,” but not “because he was against environmentalism.” ... Jody Freeman
, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that “you could largely predict where Scalia would come out on those cases. He was very consistent that the burden on the larger public to get standing was always going to be greater than for directly regulated entities.”
Law School Activists Occupy Wasserstein Hall
Student activists began to occupy Harvard Law School’s Wasserstein Hall Monday evening in an effort to create a space on campus they say has been denied to minorities at the school. Calling the student lounge “Belinda Hall” after a former slave of prominent Law School benefactors, the group of activists led by Reclaim Harvard Law said they plan to remain there indefinitely.
New York Times
Wanted by U.S.: The Stolen Millions of Despots and Crooked Elites
It’s hard to imagine a public official with more toys than Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, who spent $300 million on Ferraris, a Gulfstream jet, a California mansion and even Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” jacket. The buying spree is all the more remarkable since this scion of the ruling family of Equatorial Guinea, one of Africa’s smallest countries, bought all this while on an official salary of $100,000 a year. ... “This is not like a murder, where you have a body,” said Matthew C. Stephenson
, a professor at Harvard Law School and editor of the Global Anticorruption blog. “Financial crimes are much more complicated.”
International Justice Tribune
Georgia: Another one-sided ICC investigation in the making?
While Russia and Western states square off over Syria, Ukraine and Crimea, the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into alleged war crimes in Georgia in 2008 also risks being caught up in a new Cold War. And even though ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda was praised for finally removing what appeared to be her office’s Africa-only blinders, those who know the strategy discussions as they run deep in The Hague’s dunes, believe she has ventured into the Caucasus with extreme reluctance. “After seven years [Bensouda] had to make a decision about moving forward,” Alex Whiting
, a former member of her inner circle and now professor at Harvard Law School, told IJT.
The legacy of Antonin Scalia — the unrelenting provoker
An op-ed by Laurence Tribe:
Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely passing has deprived us of a great legal mind. But the justice leaves behind a remarkable legacy—even if not quite the one he might have sought. He once said, only partly in jest, that he preferred a “dead” to a “living” Constitution: for him, the whole purpose of a Constitution was to nail things down so they would last—to “curtail judicial caprice” by preventing judges, himself included, from having their way with the law rather than doing the people’s bidding as expressed in binding rules. Yet Scalia managed, sometimes despite himself, to bring our Constitution—and the project of interpreting it—to life more deeply than have many whose overt ambition was to espouse a “living” Constitution.
ICC takes on crimes against cultural heritage
The scale of the destruction in Timbuktu has led to the International Criminal Court in the Hague taking on a case of war crimes against cultural and religious heritage. To discuss the importance of this case, our guests are Tim Insoll, Professor of African and Islamic Archaeology, University of Manchester and Alex Whiting
, Professor of Practice at Harvard Law School.
Scalia’s Death Probably Flips Big Cases
An op-ed by Noah Feldman:
How will the death of Justice Antonin Scalia affect the major cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, all of which are expected to be decided by the end of June? The answer doesn’t depend entirely on how Scalia would’ve voted. It also depends on a necessary rule of procedure: When the Supreme Court is divided equally, it upholds the decision below.
Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Oh, the irony. First pointed out by Mathias Schindler, it appears that a copyright lecture about music copyright done by famed copyright expert and Harvard Law professor William Fisher
has been taken down due to a copyright claim by Sony Music. ... Let's be clear here: this is unquestionably fair use. It's not entirely clear to me if this was an explicit takedown or merely a YouTube ContentID match, but either way there is no reason for YouTube to have allowed this to be blocked.