Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Loving v. Virginia

2018-05-15T03:16:42Z

Homeschoolt: Living Constitution

{{discrimlaw}}
'''''Loving v. Virginia''''' was a [[Supreme Court]] Case dealing with [[interracial marriage]].
== [[Miscegenation]] Laws, and the Facts of the Case ==
Laws against interracial marriage were still in effect in sixteen US states as recently as 1967. Similar laws in other states had been repealed by then.

Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958. He was a white man, and she was a woman of mixed black and [[American Indian]] heritage. They got married in Washington D.C. because in their home state of Virginia the law still forbade interracial marriages, known in those days as 'miscegenation'. After their marriage, they lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were found guilty of violating the law and both were sentenced to one year in jail, although they were promised a suspended sentence if they left the state and did not return for 25 years.<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html</ref>

Mr. and Mrs. Loving returned to Washington D.C. and in 1963 they brought a lawsuit that challenged the constitutional basis of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the law in March 1966, but in June 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional. Because of this, all the states which still had such laws could not enforce them.

== Holding of the Court ==
The Court invalidated the ban on interracial marriages, and compelled Virginia to recognize interracial marriages, on equal protection grounds. Virginia argued that the ban was one of equal application - that is, blacks cannot marry whites and whites cannot marry blacks - and therefore not "discriminatory" under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], since the law did not classify on the basis of race ''per se''. The Court found this formalist appeal unpersuasive, recognizing that a facially sound classification may have an invidious discriminatory intent. In other words, the Court would inquire not ''just'' as to formal soundness, but as to subordinative or racist effect as well, to vindicate the intent of the framers of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. This functionalist reading of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] is characteristic of the functionalist ''zeitgeist'', following [[Brown v. Board of Education]], and the Court's continued insistence to this day that statutory equal application is not a saving grace if it is subordinative.

Importantly, the Court also noted that the long tradition of anti-miscegenation laws would not save it from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, a measure's long tradition is not a guarantee of its justice.

Finally, the Court made an overture to [[substantive due process]] in the closing notes of the case, stating that a fundamental right to marry may have been implicated by the ban on miscegenation. Rather than revive [[substantive due process]], though, the Court merely noted its willingness to consider such a plan of attack on discriminatory measures in the future. This was perhaps an attempt at "tipping off" civil rights lawyers as to another way to attack facially equal-application, yet discriminatory, measures.

== Significance of the Case ==

The case is partly significant because it is about how the United States defined people in terms of their race. The Virginia law, as well as prohibiting marriages between people of different races, also categorized multiracial people according to a set of arbitrary definitions of their 'race'. A white person was defined as someone who had only "Caucasian blood", excepting only people who had no more than one great-grandparent Native American ancestry and no other non-white ancestry. This exception was to make allowance for a long-established group of descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas. A person was defined as black if they had any "negro" ancestry, as the people of that time expressed it. A person with at least one Native American grandparent, or one Native American grandparent and one "Negro" great-grandparent and who was also a member of an Indian tribe, was defined as "American Indian".<ref>http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp</ref>

The case is also significant because it is about how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a legal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of different races. Thus the case redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of [[gay rights]] have cited this case in support of a right to marriage,<ref>Coolidge, David O, Playing the Loving Card: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Analogy, BYU Journal of Public Law, 1998, 12 BYU.</ref><ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving ''Lawrence''", Stanford Law School.</ref> although opponents argue that this is not viable as the 'Loving' marriage was still between a man and a woman.

Here is an alternate view from a Catholic writer:
:The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that [[interracial marriage]]s were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of [[white supremacy]] that the [[equal protection clause]] was designed to destroy. [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0123.htm]

==Original Intent==

"Loving v. Virginia" was a living constitutionalist decision, which codified the moral views of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court into U.S. constitutional law. The decision focused on the Fourteenth Amendment, yet those who ratified that amendment did not intend to legalize interracial marriage, and instead leave it up to the people of each state. While the result may fit in with modern sensibilities, the way the Court arrived at it, and the precedent it set, set the groundwork for the Court's later recognition of a constitutional right to [[same-sex marriage]].

==Text of the Supreme Court decision: ''Loving v. Virginia''==
'''LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA'''

'''SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES'''

388 U.S. 1

June 12, 1967, Decided

'''MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN''' delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment....
The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

"Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

"Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are § 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and §§ 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes.

Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage.

===I.===
In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse. In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

The State argues that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress about the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to make unconstitutional state miscegenation laws. Many of the statements alluded to by the State concern the debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which President Johnson vetoed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted over his veto. While these statements have some relevance to the intention of Congress in submitting the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to the passage of specific statutes and not to the broader, organic purpose of a constitutional amendment. As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem, that although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem; "[at] best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect." We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished....

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

===II.===
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

'''MR. JUSTICE STEWART''', concurring.

I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

----

==Quotations==

''I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.''—Letter by Mildred Loving, December, 2007.<ref>[http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html Mildred Loving's Statement]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
*[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html Text of the decision]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[Category:Marriage]]

Antonin Scalia

2018-05-15T03:05:31Z

Homeschoolt: Scalia voted with conservatives in Harris v. Quinn. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8387185395641692428&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

{{Officeholder
|name=Antonin Scalia
|image=Antonin.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Maureen McCarthy Scalia
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[Ronald Reagan]]
|terms=September 26, 1986-February 13, 2016
|preceded=William H. Rehnquist
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Neil Gorsuch]]
}}
}}
'''Antonin "Nino" Scalia''' (March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) joined the U.S. [[Supreme Court]] as an Associate Justice in 1986, and quickly became its most outspoken [[conservative]] jurist. He filled a vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] and nomination of Associate Justice [[William Rehnquist]] to become Chief Justice. President [[Ronald Reagan]] nominated Scalia at the same time that he nominated Rehnquist for Chief Justice, and most opposition in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] focused all their opposition on the Rehnquist nomination. Scalia was confirmed by unanimous vote, while Rehnquist was confirmed over substantial opposition. Scalia's unexpected vacancy then sparked national opposition to [[Obama]] filling it.

Justice Scalia was more outspoken off the court than on it, where he was typically silent in the denial of conservative petitions for certiorari,<ref>Justice Scalia wrote dissents from denials of cert only about three times in a decade, a rate of less than 1 in 20,000 cert denials.</ref> and he often joined liberal colleagues in opinions.<ref>Scalia's off-the-court commentary has caused problems for himself, as when ''pro se'' litigant Dr. Michael Newdow successfully filed a motion that led to Justice Scalia recusing himself from Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. [supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/03-7.recuse.pdf]</ref> Scalia once quipped about himself to the media, "Ah yes, esteemed jurist by day, man about town by night."<ref>http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/</ref> Scalia's written dissents were sometimes scathing, as in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', in ridicule of the Court opinion written by the less [[conservative]] Republican-appointed Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].

Justice Scalia was the author, with the support of three liberal and three conservative Justices, of the 7-2 decision declaring the sale of "extremely violent" [[video games]] to children to be protected by under the [[First Amendment]], which no law can limit. He is more likely than Justices Alito or Thomas to join [[liberal]] Justices in a non-[[conservative]] ruling, and vice-versa. However, this is based on a formula which characterizes votes in favor of freedom of speech and greater individual rights against government power as "liberal", a position which many conservatives would take issue with. Scalia reportedly believed that the Constitution is too difficult to amend, a position shared by many liberals.

==Early life==
Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, the only child to Salvatore Eugene Scalia and Catherine Panaro Scalia.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=eb9x3GHuLdIC&pg=PA1 The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court]</ref>

== Legal Philosophy==
Justice Scalia advocated a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "[[originalism]]" (original meaning) in interpreting the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] and federal [[statute]]s. He opposed speculation about the intent of the drafters and the view that the Court must interpret the language figuratively. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasized the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>

Some mistake Justice Scalia's philosophy as "strict constructionism." But Justice Scalia was not a [[strict constructionist]]. A strict constructionist applies constitutional provisions narrowly, but Justice Scalia has criticized that approach. Instead, Justice Scalia applied the Constitution literally, and thus believed several provisions to apply very broadly, such as the [[First Amendment]] (to protect flag-burning) and the [[Sixth Amendment]] (to protect a right to cross-examine even a lab technician if he performed [[DNA]] analysis).

Many of Scalia's opinions reflected a view that the Court needs to be predictable to lawmakers. His administrative opinions expressed a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines. His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often pointed out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end.

===Living Constitution===
Scalia was generally an opponent to the concept of a [[Living and breathing constitution]]. He would sometimes give outbursts of frustration that the [[Constitution]] is "dead".<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011526 Scalia Vigorously Defends a 'Dead' Constitution], [[NPR]]</ref>

However, at talk at [[Princeton University]], Scalia explained that the Constitution is not living nor dead, but rather it is enduring.<ref>[https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/52/39O50/index.xml?section=featured Scalia favors 'enduring,' not living, Constitution]</ref> He described the Constitution that way on a routine basis.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/05/23/a-speechless-scalia-puts-unlikely-spin-on-his-conservatism/3827dda8-f695-429e-ad13-3c9ec244ccb1/ A Speechless Scalia Puts Unlikely 'Spin' On His Conservatism], [[Washington Post]]</ref>

In a debate with [[Stephen Breyer]], Scalia brought up a line from the case [[Trop v. Dulles]] which is frequently used. The case references "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society", to which Scalia said:
<blockquote>I detest that phrase, because I'm afraid that societies don't always mature. Sometimes they rot. What makes you think that human history is one upwardly inclined plane: every day, in every way, we get better and better? It seems to me that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent change, not to foster change and have it written into a Constitution.<ref>[https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/3/4/519/791958/The-relevance-of-foreign-legal-materials-in-U-S The relevance of foreign legal materials in U.S. constitutional cases: A conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer]</ref></blockquote>

== Opinions ==
Justice Scalia was best known for his dissents, in which his colorful and forceful style highlights weaknesses in his colleagues' decisions. He staunchly opposed the notion of an "evolving" Constitution, which other justices have used to justify decisions not grounded in the text of the Constitution (see [[Responsive interpretation]] for discussion of different legal theories). For example, when the Court held that the Constitution prohibits imposing the death penalty for any crime committed by someone under 18 years of age, Scalia was scathing in dissent:<ref>''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551, 607-08 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted. emphasis added)</ref>

:In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." '''Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.''' The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," of our national society.

Quintessential writing by Justice Scalia is found in his concurrence to ''[[Ring v. Arizona]]'', which is colorful and entertaining and, some might say, self-absorbed:

:On the other hand, as I wrote in my dissent in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 248, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), and as I reaffirmed by joining the opinion for the Court in Apprendi, I believe that the fundamental meaning of the jury-trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is that all facts essential to imposition of the level of punishment that the defendant receives -- whether the statute calls them elements of the offense, sentencing factors, or Mary Jane -- must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

:The quandary is apparent: Should I continue to apply the last-stated principle when I know that the only reason the fact is essential is that this Court has mistakenly said that the Constitution requires state law to impose such "aggravating factors"? ... But even if the point had been put with greater clarity in Walton, I think I still would have approved the Arizona scheme -- I would have favored the States' freedom to develop their own capital sentencing procedures (already erroneously abridged by Furman) over the logic of the Apprendi principle.

:Since Walton, I have acquired new wisdom that consists of two realizations -- or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance ...

:I add one further point, lest the holding of today's decision be confused by the separate concurrence. JUSTICE BREYER, who refuses to accept Apprendi, see 530 U.S. at 555 (BREYER, J., dissenting); see also Harris v. United States, ante, 536 U.S. 545, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 122 S. Ct. 2406, p. , 536 U.S. 545, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 122 S. Ct. 2406 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), nonetheless concurs in today's judgment because he "believes that jury sentencing in capital cases is mandated by the Eighth Amendment." Post, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment). While I am, as always, pleased to travel in JUSTICE BREYER's company, the unfortunate fact is that today's judgment has nothing to do with jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so -- by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase. There is really no way in which JUSTICE BREYER can travel with the happy band that reaches today's result unless he says yes to Apprendi. Concisely put, JUSTICE BREYER is on the wrong flight; he should either get off before the doors close, or buy a ticket to Apprendi-land.

In another case, Justice Scalia wrote a forceful limitation on [[stare decisis]] in a concurrence and dissent in ''[[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.]], 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2007), and persuaded Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] to join it.<ref>See [[stare decisis]] for the quotation.</ref> In it Justice Scalia chastised Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] for not overruling precedent.

Justice Scalia had been less successful in forging majorities of his own on the Court, and has rarely written an important majority opinion for the Court. This may have been be due to the tendency for Chief Justice Rehnquist to assign key decisions to himself to draft.<ref>''See, e.g.'', key 5-4 opinions written by Chief Justice Rehnquist in ''United States v. Morrison'', 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (invaliding federal law over domestic violence based on federalism); ''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right not to allow openly homosexual scout leaders).</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], who replaced Rehnquist, also seems to be keeping the key decisions for himself to write.<ref>''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47 (2006)</ref>

However, Justice Scalia did obtain broad support for a remarkable decision in ''[[Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council]]'', 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), in which he applied the [[Takings Clause]] and required compensation of a property owner based merely on a regulatory taking rather than an actual physical intrusion by the government. Justice Scalia also wrote an important 5-4 opinion for the Court in ''[[Alexander v. Sandoval]]'', 532 U.S. 275 (2000), that denied a right if private individuals to sue to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Scalia also wrote an impressive 7-2 opinion for the Court in affirming strong associational rights of political parties in preventing blanket primaries or crossover voting in primaries, in ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'', 530 U.S. 567 (2000).

Justice Scalia wrote the oft-cited Court opinion in ''[[R.A.V. v. St. Paul]]'', 505 U.S. 377 (1992), which enjoyed 5-4 support though the verdict was unanimous. Justice Scalia also wrote the 7-2 Court opinion in ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'', 541 U.S. 36 (2004), in which he applied the [[Confrontation Clause]] to exclude an out-of-court statement by a witness who did not testify in court (because of the spousal privilege) against her defendant husband.

Justice Scalia has been a consistent supporter of [[federalism]], and in ''[[Printz v. United States]]'' (1997) he wrote the 5-4 opinion that invalidated certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks.

In the dissent for [[Obergefell v. Hodges]], Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.}}

== Opposition to Balancing Tests ==

Justice Scalia was against judicial use of balancing tests. "It is more like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy," he remarked in one of his early dissents.<ref>''Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc.'', 486 U.S. 888, 897 (1988).</ref>

In criminal matters, Justice Scalia's opposition to balancing tests and preference for bright-line rules has influenced the Court on these issues:

*adherence to the [[Confrontation Clause]] in excluding out-of-court testimonial statements<ref>''Davis v. Washington'', 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006).</ref>
*invalidation of mandatory [[Sentencing Guidelines]]<ref>''United States v. Booker'', 543 U.S. 220 (2005).</ref>
*interference with a right to counsel requires overturning the conviction.<ref>U''nited States v. Gonzalez-Lopez'', 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006).</ref>

== Influence on Narrowing Standing ==

Perhaps Justice Scalia's most frequently cited opinion for the Court is ''Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992), in which he narrowed standing by organizations to challenge regulations (in that case, a regulation related to the [[Endangered Species Act]]). Many organizations still do sue successfully in challenging regulations, but the ''Lujan'' decision provides grounds for dismissing such lawsuits. Justice Scalia was unable to persuade a majority of the Court to join a part of his decision that would have established an additional reason for dismissing such lawsuits: lack of redressability.

== [[Separation of Powers]] ==

Justice Scalia emphasized a strict [[separation of powers]] among the branches of government, and even teaches a seminar on this topic. In contrast, Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] advocates more interplay between the branches of government.

== Non-Conservative Positions ==

Justice Scalia provided the pivotal fifth vote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to hold that there is a [[First Amendment]] right to burn the American Flag.<ref>[[Texas v. Johnson]] (1989)</ref>

Justice Scalia usually deferred to the democratic majority on issues of government speech and religious freedom, subjecting the rights of the political minority to the power of the political majority. Examples include:

*In ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'', Justice Scalia held that religious minorities have no right to religious practices prohibited by the democratic majority, unless another constitutional right is implicated by the ban.

*In ''[[Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n]]'', Justice Scalia declared that "[w]e have generally assumed, though not yet squarely held, that compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns"<ref>544 U.S. 550, 559 (2005).</ref>—in other words, the democratic majority can compel government speech by the political minority.

On parental rights, unlike most [[conservatives]] Justice Scalia opposes the principle that parents have a constitutional right to the upbringing and education of their children. Specifically, Justice Scalia has indicated his disagreement with the leading precedent in favor of parental rights to control the education of their children, ''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]''. Specifically:

*In ''[[Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]]'', 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007), Justice Scalia (and Justice Thomas) did not join the Court's reliance on ''Pierce'' in allowing [[pro se]] parents to litigate claims for their children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
*In ''[[Troxel v. Granville]]'', 530 U.S. 57, 91-92 (2000), Justice Scalia wrote a two paragraph dissent (not joined by Justice Thomas):<ref>[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZD1.html]</ref>
::In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "other [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.

::Only three holdings of this Court rest in whole or in part upon a substantive constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children 1 -- two of them from an era rich in substantive due process holdings that have since been repudiated. ''See'' ''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]'', 262 U.S. 390'', 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923);'' Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925); ''Wisconsin v. Yoder'', 406 U.S. 205, 232-233, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972). ''Cf.'' ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish'', 300 U.S. 379, 81 L. Ed. 703, 57 S. Ct. 578 (1937) (overruling ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital|Adkins v. Children's Hospital of D.C.]]'', 261 U.S. 525, 67 L. Ed. 785, 43 S. Ct. 394 (1923)). The sheer diversity of today's opinions persuades me that the theory of unenumerated parental rights underlying these three cases has small claim to stare decisis protection. A legal principle that can be thought to produce such diverse outcomes in the relatively simple case before us here is not a legal principle that has induced substantial reliance. While I would not now overrule those earlier cases (that has not been urged), neither would I extend the theory upon which they rested to this new context.

*In ''United States v. Carlton'', 512 U.S. 26, 40-41 (1994), Justice Scalia concurred separately and added this paragraph (joined by Justice Thomas):
::I cannot avoid observing, however, two stark discrepancies between today's due process reasoning and the due process reasoning the Court applies to its identification of new so-called fundamental rights, such as the right to structure family living arrangements, see ''Moore v. East Cleveland'', 431 U.S. 494, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977) (plurality opinion), and the right to an abortion, see ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973). First and most obviously, where respondent's claimed right to hold onto his property is at issue, the Court upholds the tax amendment because it rationally furthers a legitimate interest; whereas when other claimed rights that the Court deems fundamental are at issue, the Court strikes down laws that concededly promote legitimate interests, id., at 150, 162. Secondly, when it is pointed out that the Court's retroactive-tax ruling today is inconsistent with earlier decisions, ''see, e.g.'', ''Nichols v. Coolidge'', 274 U.S. 531, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 47 S. Ct. 710 (1927); ''Blodgett v. Holden'', 275 U.S. 142, 72 L. Ed. 206, 48 S. Ct. 105 (1927); ''Untermyer v. Anderson'', 276 U.S. 440, 72 L. Ed. 645, 48 S. Ct. 353 (1928), the Court dismisses those cases as having been "decided during an era characterized by exacting review of economic legislation under an approach that 'has long since been discarded.'" ''Ante'', at 34, quoting ''Ferguson v. Skrupa'', 372 U.S. 726, 730, 10 L. Ed. 2d 93, 83 S. Ct. 1028 (1963). But economic legislation was not the only legislation subjected to "exacting review" in those bad old days, and one wonders what principled reason justifies "discarding" that bad old approach only as to that category. For the Court continues to rely upon "exacting review" cases of the Nichols-Blodgett-Untermyer vintage for its due process "fundamental rights" jurisprudence. ''See, e.g.'', ''Roe'', 410 U.S. at 152-153, 159 (citing ''Meyer v. Nebraska'', 262 U.S. 390, 399, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), and ''Pierce v. Society of Sisters'', 268 U.S. 510, 535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925)); see also ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', 381 U.S. 479, 483, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965) ("We reaffirm the principle of the ''Pierce'' and the ''Meyer'' cases").

Justice Scalia wrote a strident dissent in ''[[Sell v. United States]]'' (2003), in which he supported allowing the government to forcibly medicate a never-convicted defendant with mind-altering drugs, and without a right of direct appeal of such decision. [[Conservative]] groups in the case opposed such far-reaching with Justice Scalia by a 6-3 vote and blocked the forced medication in that case.

Justice Scalia surprisingly joined a more [[liberal]] group in striking down state restrictions on the direct shipment of wine by out-of-state wineries. In ''Granholm v. Heald'' (2005), Justice Scalia rejected numerous [[conservative]] amicus briefs and declined to join the opinion of Justice Thomas, and instead provided the pivotal 5th vote to interpreting the [[Commerce Clause]] as prohibiting state limitations on interstate wine shipments, despite the [[Twenty-First Amendment]] and a federal statute granting authority to states over alcohol.

*In a case deciding the right of private property against a taking by government, Justice Scalia declined to join the [[conservative]] Justices and provide a much-needed fifth vote to overturn ''Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City'', 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires property owners who assert a [[Fifth Amendment]] takings claim based on the final decision of a state or local government entity to first seek compensation in state courts. ''See'' ''[[San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco]]'', 545 U.S. 323 (2005).

== Increasing Influence ==

After serving more than two decades on the Court, Justice Scalia's first major decision was in ''D.C. v. Heller'', where he held together a narrow 5-4 decision in favor of an individual right to bear arms. During the tenure of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Rehnquist tended to assign key decisions to himself to draft.<ref>''See, e.g.'', key 5-4 opinions written by Chief Justice Rehnquist in ''United States v. Morrison'', 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (invaliding federal law over domestic violence based on federalism); ''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right not to allow openly homosexual scout leaders).</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], who replaced Rehnquist, also seems to be keeping the key decisions for himself to write.<ref>''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47 (2006)</ref>

When major cases have been assigned to Justice Scalia, some 5-vote majorities have proven elusive. For example, Justice Scalia was assigned to write the opinion for the Court in ''Rapanos v. United States'', 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006), one of the most important environmental cases in years. However, Justice Kennedy refused to join Justice Scalia's opinion and thus it lacked a majority and was unable to establish a meaningful precedent. In another leading case, ''Employment Div. v. Smith'', 485 U.S. 660 (1988), Justice Scalia was supported by a majority of the Court but wrote an opinion that was widely criticized by both [[conservatives]] and [[liberals]]. They joined to reverse Scalia's decision with a statute passed by Congress.

Sometimes Justice Scalia has occasionally disappointed [[conservatives]] in ruling contrary to expectations, typically in low-profile cases. In an issue presented to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] about whether a Michigan limitation on direct shipment of wine into the state from other states was a violation of the [[dormant Commerce Clause]], Justice Scalia's emphatic opposition to the [[dormant Commerce Clause]] would presumably lead him to uphold the Michigan law. ''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''. Instead, he broke with Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[William Rehnquist]] and provided the 5th vote for a majority opinion written by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] invalidating the law on a slightly different rationale. Justice Scalia has also been hostile to [[conservative]] attorneys who have appeared before him, as in the cases of ''Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Falvo'' and ''Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish''.

Sometimes Justice Scalia failed to join an opinion as expected, as when he failed to join Justice Thomas's dissent emphasizing statutory textualism in dissenting from Justice [[Stephen Breyer]]'s majority decision in ''[[Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing]]''.

Justice Scalia can be harshest on his allies, with questionable effect. In opinions he was highly critical of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and [[Anthony Kennedy]], and more recently Justice Scalia has been critical of Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] for not expressly overruling an incorrect precedent.

Justice Scalia often cited his work in his opinions. For example, in Justice Scalia's dissent in the [[Establishment Clause]] case of ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), Justice Scalia cited six of his prior concurrences and dissents, and one of his own law review articles (Scalia dissenting opinion was that the government may favor religion over [[Atheism|irreligion]]).

==Death==
Scalia died unexpectedly on Feb 13, 2016, apparently of a heart attack during his sleep; he had hours earlier indicated that he was not feeling well. He was staying at a hunting lodge, the Cibola Creek Ranch in Presidio County, [[Texas]], near the [[Mexico|Mexican]] border on lands once owned by the [[Big Bend National Park|Big Bend]] cattle baron [[Milton Faver]].<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/13/inside-cibolo-creek-ranch-the-luxury-resort-where-scalia-died/</ref><ref>John MacCormack, "Faver First Cattle King West of the Pecos: Mysterious rancher lived like nobility in arid W. Texas", ''San Antonio Express-News'', February 4, 2018, p. A8.</ref>

[[George Mason University]] proposes to name its law school in honor of Justice Scalia.

In an unprecedented move, the Senate did not conduct a confirmation hearing for the [[liberal]] [[Merrick Garland]]. Garland was Obama's nominee to succeed Scalia.<ref>http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/senate_hold_on_merrick_garland_nomination_is_unprecedented_almost/</ref> The Court remained incomplete for the remainder of Obama's term, which was more than six months. The Senate chose this action because it knew that Obama's nominee was a leftist who would shift the court to the left and would [[Judicial Activism|legislate]] even more oppressive and unconstitutional decisions than it already had. Scalia himself did not retire during the Obama Administration because he knew of the damaging consequences that would result from such a move.<ref>Coyle, Marcia; Mauro, Tony (October 29, 2012). [http://www.niu.edu/polisci/faculty/profiles/ward/ward_files/ElectingaSupremeCourt.pdf Electing a Supreme Court]. ''The National Law Journal''. Retrieved Janary 22, 2017.</ref>

== Former Clerks ==

As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Scalia has mentored over 80 clerks. They include:

:Patrick Schiltz, U.S. District Judge in Minnesota (confirmed 2006)
:Mark Filip, U.S. District Judge in Illinois (confirmed 2004)
:Jeffrey Sutton, U.S. appellate judge for the Sixth Circuit (confirmed 2003)
:Solicitor General [[Paul Clement]], appointed interim [[Attorney General]] in 2007
:Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

== See also ==

*[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/02/18/symposium-on-justice-scalia/ Symposium on Justice Scalia]

==Further reading==
* Biskupic, Joan. ''American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia'' (2009) [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Rosen-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3 online review]
* Brisbin, Jr., Richard A. ''Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Antonin-Scalia-Conservative-Revival/dp/0801860946/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262671822&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Rossum, Ralph A. ''Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text And Tradition'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Antonin-Scalias-Jurisprudence-Text-Tradition/dp/0700614478/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262671822&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Scalia, Antonin. ''Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice'' ed. by Kevin A. Ring(2004)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Scalia, Antonin}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Antonin Scalia

2018-05-15T03:03:34Z

Homeschoolt: Added and changed certain verbs to past tense and added clarification that a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights is generally not a "liberal" position. Scalia definitely did take some liberal points of view, but there were some unfair comments

{{Officeholder
|name=Antonin Scalia
|image=Antonin.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Maureen McCarthy Scalia
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[Ronald Reagan]]
|terms=September 26, 1986-February 13, 2016
|preceded=William H. Rehnquist
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Neil Gorsuch]]
}}
}}
'''Antonin "Nino" Scalia''' (March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) joined the U.S. [[Supreme Court]] as an Associate Justice in 1986, and quickly became its most outspoken [[conservative]] jurist. He filled a vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] and nomination of Associate Justice [[William Rehnquist]] to become Chief Justice. President [[Ronald Reagan]] nominated Scalia at the same time that he nominated Rehnquist for Chief Justice, and most opposition in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] focused all their opposition on the Rehnquist nomination. Scalia was confirmed by unanimous vote, while Rehnquist was confirmed over substantial opposition. Scalia's unexpected vacancy then sparked national opposition to [[Obama]] filling it.

Justice Scalia was more outspoken off the court than on it, where he was typically silent in the denial of conservative petitions for certiorari,<ref>Justice Scalia wrote dissents from denials of cert only about three times in a decade, a rate of less than 1 in 20,000 cert denials.</ref> and he often joined liberal colleagues in opinions.<ref>Scalia's off-the-court commentary has caused problems for himself, as when ''pro se'' litigant Dr. Michael Newdow successfully filed a motion that led to Justice Scalia recusing himself from Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. [supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/03-7.recuse.pdf]</ref> Scalia once quipped about himself to the media, "Ah yes, esteemed jurist by day, man about town by night."<ref>http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/</ref> Scalia's written dissents were sometimes scathing, as in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', in ridicule of the Court opinion written by the less [[conservative]] Republican-appointed Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].

Justice Scalia was the author, with the support of three liberal and three conservative Justices, of the 7-2 decision declaring the sale of "extremely violent" [[video games]] to children to be protected by under the [[First Amendment]], which no law can limit. He is more likely than Justices Alito or Thomas to join [[liberal]] Justices in a non-[[conservative]] ruling, and vice-versa. However, this is based on a formula which characterizes votes in favor of freedom of speech and greater individual rights against government power as "liberal", a position which many conservatives would take issue with. In one of the biggest cases of the 2013-2014 Term, ''Harris v. Quinn'', Justice Scalia's hostile questioning of the conservative side at oral argument implied that he was the least willing among conservatives to support a decision to end mandatory membership dues for public sector unions, which would have reduced liberal political power enormously. Scalia reportedly believed that the Constitution is too difficult to amend, a position shared by many liberals.

==Early life==
Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, the only child to Salvatore Eugene Scalia and Catherine Panaro Scalia.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=eb9x3GHuLdIC&pg=PA1 The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court]</ref>

== Legal Philosophy==
Justice Scalia advocated a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "[[originalism]]" (original meaning) in interpreting the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] and federal [[statute]]s. He opposed speculation about the intent of the drafters and the view that the Court must interpret the language figuratively. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasized the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>

Some mistake Justice Scalia's philosophy as "strict constructionism." But Justice Scalia was not a [[strict constructionist]]. A strict constructionist applies constitutional provisions narrowly, but Justice Scalia has criticized that approach. Instead, Justice Scalia applied the Constitution literally, and thus believed several provisions to apply very broadly, such as the [[First Amendment]] (to protect flag-burning) and the [[Sixth Amendment]] (to protect a right to cross-examine even a lab technician if he performed [[DNA]] analysis).

Many of Scalia's opinions reflected a view that the Court needs to be predictable to lawmakers. His administrative opinions expressed a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines. His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often pointed out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end.

===Living Constitution===
Scalia was generally an opponent to the concept of a [[Living and breathing constitution]]. He would sometimes give outbursts of frustration that the [[Constitution]] is "dead".<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011526 Scalia Vigorously Defends a 'Dead' Constitution], [[NPR]]</ref>

However, at talk at [[Princeton University]], Scalia explained that the Constitution is not living nor dead, but rather it is enduring.<ref>[https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/52/39O50/index.xml?section=featured Scalia favors 'enduring,' not living, Constitution]</ref> He described the Constitution that way on a routine basis.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/05/23/a-speechless-scalia-puts-unlikely-spin-on-his-conservatism/3827dda8-f695-429e-ad13-3c9ec244ccb1/ A Speechless Scalia Puts Unlikely 'Spin' On His Conservatism], [[Washington Post]]</ref>

In a debate with [[Stephen Breyer]], Scalia brought up a line from the case [[Trop v. Dulles]] which is frequently used. The case references "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society", to which Scalia said:
<blockquote>I detest that phrase, because I'm afraid that societies don't always mature. Sometimes they rot. What makes you think that human history is one upwardly inclined plane: every day, in every way, we get better and better? It seems to me that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent change, not to foster change and have it written into a Constitution.<ref>[https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/3/4/519/791958/The-relevance-of-foreign-legal-materials-in-U-S The relevance of foreign legal materials in U.S. constitutional cases: A conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer]</ref></blockquote>

== Opinions ==
Justice Scalia was best known for his dissents, in which his colorful and forceful style highlights weaknesses in his colleagues' decisions. He staunchly opposed the notion of an "evolving" Constitution, which other justices have used to justify decisions not grounded in the text of the Constitution (see [[Responsive interpretation]] for discussion of different legal theories). For example, when the Court held that the Constitution prohibits imposing the death penalty for any crime committed by someone under 18 years of age, Scalia was scathing in dissent:<ref>''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551, 607-08 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted. emphasis added)</ref>

:In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." '''Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.''' The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," of our national society.

Quintessential writing by Justice Scalia is found in his concurrence to ''[[Ring v. Arizona]]'', which is colorful and entertaining and, some might say, self-absorbed:

:On the other hand, as I wrote in my dissent in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 248, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), and as I reaffirmed by joining the opinion for the Court in Apprendi, I believe that the fundamental meaning of the jury-trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is that all facts essential to imposition of the level of punishment that the defendant receives -- whether the statute calls them elements of the offense, sentencing factors, or Mary Jane -- must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

:The quandary is apparent: Should I continue to apply the last-stated principle when I know that the only reason the fact is essential is that this Court has mistakenly said that the Constitution requires state law to impose such "aggravating factors"? ... But even if the point had been put with greater clarity in Walton, I think I still would have approved the Arizona scheme -- I would have favored the States' freedom to develop their own capital sentencing procedures (already erroneously abridged by Furman) over the logic of the Apprendi principle.

:Since Walton, I have acquired new wisdom that consists of two realizations -- or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance ...

:I add one further point, lest the holding of today's decision be confused by the separate concurrence. JUSTICE BREYER, who refuses to accept Apprendi, see 530 U.S. at 555 (BREYER, J., dissenting); see also Harris v. United States, ante, 536 U.S. 545, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 122 S. Ct. 2406, p. , 536 U.S. 545, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 122 S. Ct. 2406 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), nonetheless concurs in today's judgment because he "believes that jury sentencing in capital cases is mandated by the Eighth Amendment." Post, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment). While I am, as always, pleased to travel in JUSTICE BREYER's company, the unfortunate fact is that today's judgment has nothing to do with jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so -- by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase. There is really no way in which JUSTICE BREYER can travel with the happy band that reaches today's result unless he says yes to Apprendi. Concisely put, JUSTICE BREYER is on the wrong flight; he should either get off before the doors close, or buy a ticket to Apprendi-land.

In another case, Justice Scalia wrote a forceful limitation on [[stare decisis]] in a concurrence and dissent in ''[[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.]], 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2007), and persuaded Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] to join it.<ref>See [[stare decisis]] for the quotation.</ref> In it Justice Scalia chastised Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] for not overruling precedent.

Justice Scalia had been less successful in forging majorities of his own on the Court, and has rarely written an important majority opinion for the Court. This may have been be due to the tendency for Chief Justice Rehnquist to assign key decisions to himself to draft.<ref>''See, e.g.'', key 5-4 opinions written by Chief Justice Rehnquist in ''United States v. Morrison'', 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (invaliding federal law over domestic violence based on federalism); ''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right not to allow openly homosexual scout leaders).</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], who replaced Rehnquist, also seems to be keeping the key decisions for himself to write.<ref>''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47 (2006)</ref>

However, Justice Scalia did obtain broad support for a remarkable decision in ''[[Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council]]'', 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), in which he applied the [[Takings Clause]] and required compensation of a property owner based merely on a regulatory taking rather than an actual physical intrusion by the government. Justice Scalia also wrote an important 5-4 opinion for the Court in ''[[Alexander v. Sandoval]]'', 532 U.S. 275 (2000), that denied a right if private individuals to sue to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Scalia also wrote an impressive 7-2 opinion for the Court in affirming strong associational rights of political parties in preventing blanket primaries or crossover voting in primaries, in ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'', 530 U.S. 567 (2000).

Justice Scalia wrote the oft-cited Court opinion in ''[[R.A.V. v. St. Paul]]'', 505 U.S. 377 (1992), which enjoyed 5-4 support though the verdict was unanimous. Justice Scalia also wrote the 7-2 Court opinion in ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'', 541 U.S. 36 (2004), in which he applied the [[Confrontation Clause]] to exclude an out-of-court statement by a witness who did not testify in court (because of the spousal privilege) against her defendant husband.

Justice Scalia has been a consistent supporter of [[federalism]], and in ''[[Printz v. United States]]'' (1997) he wrote the 5-4 opinion that invalidated certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks.

In the dissent for [[Obergefell v. Hodges]], Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.}}

== Opposition to Balancing Tests ==

Justice Scalia was against judicial use of balancing tests. "It is more like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy," he remarked in one of his early dissents.<ref>''Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc.'', 486 U.S. 888, 897 (1988).</ref>

In criminal matters, Justice Scalia's opposition to balancing tests and preference for bright-line rules has influenced the Court on these issues:

*adherence to the [[Confrontation Clause]] in excluding out-of-court testimonial statements<ref>''Davis v. Washington'', 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006).</ref>
*invalidation of mandatory [[Sentencing Guidelines]]<ref>''United States v. Booker'', 543 U.S. 220 (2005).</ref>
*interference with a right to counsel requires overturning the conviction.<ref>U''nited States v. Gonzalez-Lopez'', 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006).</ref>

== Influence on Narrowing Standing ==

Perhaps Justice Scalia's most frequently cited opinion for the Court is ''Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992), in which he narrowed standing by organizations to challenge regulations (in that case, a regulation related to the [[Endangered Species Act]]). Many organizations still do sue successfully in challenging regulations, but the ''Lujan'' decision provides grounds for dismissing such lawsuits. Justice Scalia was unable to persuade a majority of the Court to join a part of his decision that would have established an additional reason for dismissing such lawsuits: lack of redressability.

== [[Separation of Powers]] ==

Justice Scalia emphasized a strict [[separation of powers]] among the branches of government, and even teaches a seminar on this topic. In contrast, Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] advocates more interplay between the branches of government.

== Non-Conservative Positions ==

Justice Scalia provided the pivotal fifth vote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to hold that there is a [[First Amendment]] right to burn the American Flag.<ref>[[Texas v. Johnson]] (1989)</ref>

Justice Scalia usually deferred to the democratic majority on issues of government speech and religious freedom, subjecting the rights of the political minority to the power of the political majority. Examples include:

*In ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'', Justice Scalia held that religious minorities have no right to religious practices prohibited by the democratic majority, unless another constitutional right is implicated by the ban.

*In ''[[Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n]]'', Justice Scalia declared that "[w]e have generally assumed, though not yet squarely held, that compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns"<ref>544 U.S. 550, 559 (2005).</ref>—in other words, the democratic majority can compel government speech by the political minority.

On parental rights, unlike most [[conservatives]] Justice Scalia opposes the principle that parents have a constitutional right to the upbringing and education of their children. Specifically, Justice Scalia has indicated his disagreement with the leading precedent in favor of parental rights to control the education of their children, ''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]''. Specifically:

*In ''[[Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]]'', 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007), Justice Scalia (and Justice Thomas) did not join the Court's reliance on ''Pierce'' in allowing [[pro se]] parents to litigate claims for their children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
*In ''[[Troxel v. Granville]]'', 530 U.S. 57, 91-92 (2000), Justice Scalia wrote a two paragraph dissent (not joined by Justice Thomas):<ref>[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZD1.html]</ref>
::In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "other [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.

::Only three holdings of this Court rest in whole or in part upon a substantive constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children 1 -- two of them from an era rich in substantive due process holdings that have since been repudiated. ''See'' ''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]'', 262 U.S. 390'', 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923);'' Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925); ''Wisconsin v. Yoder'', 406 U.S. 205, 232-233, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972). ''Cf.'' ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish'', 300 U.S. 379, 81 L. Ed. 703, 57 S. Ct. 578 (1937) (overruling ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital|Adkins v. Children's Hospital of D.C.]]'', 261 U.S. 525, 67 L. Ed. 785, 43 S. Ct. 394 (1923)). The sheer diversity of today's opinions persuades me that the theory of unenumerated parental rights underlying these three cases has small claim to stare decisis protection. A legal principle that can be thought to produce such diverse outcomes in the relatively simple case before us here is not a legal principle that has induced substantial reliance. While I would not now overrule those earlier cases (that has not been urged), neither would I extend the theory upon which they rested to this new context.

*In ''United States v. Carlton'', 512 U.S. 26, 40-41 (1994), Justice Scalia concurred separately and added this paragraph (joined by Justice Thomas):
::I cannot avoid observing, however, two stark discrepancies between today's due process reasoning and the due process reasoning the Court applies to its identification of new so-called fundamental rights, such as the right to structure family living arrangements, see ''Moore v. East Cleveland'', 431 U.S. 494, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977) (plurality opinion), and the right to an abortion, see ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973). First and most obviously, where respondent's claimed right to hold onto his property is at issue, the Court upholds the tax amendment because it rationally furthers a legitimate interest; whereas when other claimed rights that the Court deems fundamental are at issue, the Court strikes down laws that concededly promote legitimate interests, id., at 150, 162. Secondly, when it is pointed out that the Court's retroactive-tax ruling today is inconsistent with earlier decisions, ''see, e.g.'', ''Nichols v. Coolidge'', 274 U.S. 531, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 47 S. Ct. 710 (1927); ''Blodgett v. Holden'', 275 U.S. 142, 72 L. Ed. 206, 48 S. Ct. 105 (1927); ''Untermyer v. Anderson'', 276 U.S. 440, 72 L. Ed. 645, 48 S. Ct. 353 (1928), the Court dismisses those cases as having been "decided during an era characterized by exacting review of economic legislation under an approach that 'has long since been discarded.'" ''Ante'', at 34, quoting ''Ferguson v. Skrupa'', 372 U.S. 726, 730, 10 L. Ed. 2d 93, 83 S. Ct. 1028 (1963). But economic legislation was not the only legislation subjected to "exacting review" in those bad old days, and one wonders what principled reason justifies "discarding" that bad old approach only as to that category. For the Court continues to rely upon "exacting review" cases of the Nichols-Blodgett-Untermyer vintage for its due process "fundamental rights" jurisprudence. ''See, e.g.'', ''Roe'', 410 U.S. at 152-153, 159 (citing ''Meyer v. Nebraska'', 262 U.S. 390, 399, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), and ''Pierce v. Society of Sisters'', 268 U.S. 510, 535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925)); see also ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', 381 U.S. 479, 483, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965) ("We reaffirm the principle of the ''Pierce'' and the ''Meyer'' cases").

Justice Scalia wrote a strident dissent in ''[[Sell v. United States]]'' (2003), in which he supported allowing the government to forcibly medicate a never-convicted defendant with mind-altering drugs, and without a right of direct appeal of such decision. [[Conservative]] groups in the case opposed such far-reaching with Justice Scalia by a 6-3 vote and blocked the forced medication in that case.

Justice Scalia surprisingly joined a more [[liberal]] group in striking down state restrictions on the direct shipment of wine by out-of-state wineries. In ''Granholm v. Heald'' (2005), Justice Scalia rejected numerous [[conservative]] amicus briefs and declined to join the opinion of Justice Thomas, and instead provided the pivotal 5th vote to interpreting the [[Commerce Clause]] as prohibiting state limitations on interstate wine shipments, despite the [[Twenty-First Amendment]] and a federal statute granting authority to states over alcohol.

*In a case deciding the right of private property against a taking by government, Justice Scalia declined to join the [[conservative]] Justices and provide a much-needed fifth vote to overturn ''Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City'', 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires property owners who assert a [[Fifth Amendment]] takings claim based on the final decision of a state or local government entity to first seek compensation in state courts. ''See'' ''[[San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco]]'', 545 U.S. 323 (2005).

== Increasing Influence ==

After serving more than two decades on the Court, Justice Scalia's first major decision was in ''D.C. v. Heller'', where he held together a narrow 5-4 decision in favor of an individual right to bear arms. During the tenure of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Rehnquist tended to assign key decisions to himself to draft.<ref>''See, e.g.'', key 5-4 opinions written by Chief Justice Rehnquist in ''United States v. Morrison'', 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (invaliding federal law over domestic violence based on federalism); ''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right not to allow openly homosexual scout leaders).</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], who replaced Rehnquist, also seems to be keeping the key decisions for himself to write.<ref>''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47 (2006)</ref>

When major cases have been assigned to Justice Scalia, some 5-vote majorities have proven elusive. For example, Justice Scalia was assigned to write the opinion for the Court in ''Rapanos v. United States'', 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006), one of the most important environmental cases in years. However, Justice Kennedy refused to join Justice Scalia's opinion and thus it lacked a majority and was unable to establish a meaningful precedent. In another leading case, ''Employment Div. v. Smith'', 485 U.S. 660 (1988), Justice Scalia was supported by a majority of the Court but wrote an opinion that was widely criticized by both [[conservatives]] and [[liberals]]. They joined to reverse Scalia's decision with a statute passed by Congress.

Sometimes Justice Scalia has occasionally disappointed [[conservatives]] in ruling contrary to expectations, typically in low-profile cases. In an issue presented to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] about whether a Michigan limitation on direct shipment of wine into the state from other states was a violation of the [[dormant Commerce Clause]], Justice Scalia's emphatic opposition to the [[dormant Commerce Clause]] would presumably lead him to uphold the Michigan law. ''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''. Instead, he broke with Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[William Rehnquist]] and provided the 5th vote for a majority opinion written by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] invalidating the law on a slightly different rationale. Justice Scalia has also been hostile to [[conservative]] attorneys who have appeared before him, as in the cases of ''Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Falvo'' and ''Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish''.

Sometimes Justice Scalia failed to join an opinion as expected, as when he failed to join Justice Thomas's dissent emphasizing statutory textualism in dissenting from Justice [[Stephen Breyer]]'s majority decision in ''[[Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing]]''.

Justice Scalia can be harshest on his allies, with questionable effect. In opinions he was highly critical of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and [[Anthony Kennedy]], and more recently Justice Scalia has been critical of Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] for not expressly overruling an incorrect precedent.

Justice Scalia often cited his work in his opinions. For example, in Justice Scalia's dissent in the [[Establishment Clause]] case of ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), Justice Scalia cited six of his prior concurrences and dissents, and one of his own law review articles (Scalia dissenting opinion was that the government may favor religion over [[Atheism|irreligion]]).

==Death==
Scalia died unexpectedly on Feb 13, 2016, apparently of a heart attack during his sleep; he had hours earlier indicated that he was not feeling well. He was staying at a hunting lodge, the Cibola Creek Ranch in Presidio County, [[Texas]], near the [[Mexico|Mexican]] border on lands once owned by the [[Big Bend National Park|Big Bend]] cattle baron [[Milton Faver]].<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/13/inside-cibolo-creek-ranch-the-luxury-resort-where-scalia-died/</ref><ref>John MacCormack, "Faver First Cattle King West of the Pecos: Mysterious rancher lived like nobility in arid W. Texas", ''San Antonio Express-News'', February 4, 2018, p. A8.</ref>

[[George Mason University]] proposes to name its law school in honor of Justice Scalia.

In an unprecedented move, the Senate did not conduct a confirmation hearing for the [[liberal]] [[Merrick Garland]]. Garland was Obama's nominee to succeed Scalia.<ref>http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/senate_hold_on_merrick_garland_nomination_is_unprecedented_almost/</ref> The Court remained incomplete for the remainder of Obama's term, which was more than six months. The Senate chose this action because it knew that Obama's nominee was a leftist who would shift the court to the left and would [[Judicial Activism|legislate]] even more oppressive and unconstitutional decisions than it already had. Scalia himself did not retire during the Obama Administration because he knew of the damaging consequences that would result from such a move.<ref>Coyle, Marcia; Mauro, Tony (October 29, 2012). [http://www.niu.edu/polisci/faculty/profiles/ward/ward_files/ElectingaSupremeCourt.pdf Electing a Supreme Court]. ''The National Law Journal''. Retrieved Janary 22, 2017.</ref>

== Former Clerks ==

As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Scalia has mentored over 80 clerks. They include:

:Patrick Schiltz, U.S. District Judge in Minnesota (confirmed 2006)
:Mark Filip, U.S. District Judge in Illinois (confirmed 2004)
:Jeffrey Sutton, U.S. appellate judge for the Sixth Circuit (confirmed 2003)
:Solicitor General [[Paul Clement]], appointed interim [[Attorney General]] in 2007
:Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

== See also ==

*[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/02/18/symposium-on-justice-scalia/ Symposium on Justice Scalia]

==Further reading==
* Biskupic, Joan. ''American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia'' (2009) [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Rosen-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3 online review]
* Brisbin, Jr., Richard A. ''Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Antonin-Scalia-Conservative-Revival/dp/0801860946/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262671822&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Rossum, Ralph A. ''Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text And Tradition'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Antonin-Scalias-Jurisprudence-Text-Tradition/dp/0700614478/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262671822&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Scalia, Antonin. ''Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice'' ed. by Kevin A. Ring(2004)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Scalia, Antonin}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

First Amendment

2018-05-15T02:51:02Z

Homeschoolt: Added information about symbolic speech debate and religion

The '''First Amendment''' to the [[United States Constitution]] is an amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, which is generally taken as a limitation on the power of the federal government with respect to:
#[[freedom of religion]]
#[[free speech]]
#[[freedom of the press]]
#[[freedom of assembly]]
#[[activism|political activism]]

The amendment states:
{{cquote|'''[[Congress]] shall make no law respecting an establishment of [[religion]], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [[freedom of speech]], or of the [[press]]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the [[government]] for a redress of grievances.'''}}

The protection for [[free speech]] was largely motivated to safeguard the preaching of the [[Bible]]. Several passages in the Bible, both [[Old Testament]] and [[New|New Testament]], support a right of free speech, including Numbers 11:26-30 (Moses allowed free speech by declaring, "If only all the people of the LORD were prophets!");<ref>[[NAB]] version quoted above.</ref> Mark 9:38-41 (admonition by [[Jesus]] not to stop strangers who cast out evil in his name).

==Background==
A group of colonial leaders known as the [[Anti-Federalists]] expressed concern that the Constitution contained no guarantee of individual liberties, and they pressed for the document to be amended. Their insistence led to the creation of the [[Bill of Rights]] by [[James Madison]] in 1791.<ref>http://www.cas.unt.edu/~jryan/AntiFeds.html</ref>

Madison was the principal author of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=d_Nyi_Ur3pAC&pg=PA267 The Columbia Documentary History of Religion in America Since 1945]</ref><ref>[http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ Bill of Rights of the United States of America (1791)]</ref>

== Conservative Interpretation ==
{{cquote|'''To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: ''The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.'' --- [[Ronald Reagan]]'''}}

Liberals often focus on the "[[Establishment Clause]]", arguing that because the federal government cannot endorse or establish a religion, the state must remain neutral, or even hostile towards religion. This position is not supported by the original intent and application of the Constitution. Michael Farris argues that the Establishment Clause should not apply to the states because it is a jurisdictional limit on federal power, rather than a protection of rights incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, liberals often overlook the clause explicitly allowing for the free exercise of religion, also known as the [[Free Exercise Clause]]. Conservatives argue that this clause can be interpreted to allow much more leeway to the majority of religious Americans than liberals currently allow, and that it provides legislators with great flexibility in supporting the ends of Christian faith, as long as all other religious denominations are equally supported. The fact that [[Congress]] may pass no law establishing or respecting a particular Christian denomination provides the federal government with the freedom to support a variety of Christian ventures, notably the faith-based initiatives enacted under [[President Bush]].

The extent of First Amendment protections of freedom of speech have been a topic of controversy even within the conservative movement. While all conservatives agree that the First Amendment grants absolute protection to ideas, including so-called hate speech, many argue that it does not protect certain "expressive conduct" like flag-burning and violent video games, a position opposed by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who believes that while flag-burning is reprehensible, the First Amendment does not contain an exception allowing for the government to forbid it. <ref>https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-the-supreme-court-ruled-to-allow-american-flag-burning</ref> <ref>https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/08-1448</ref>

== Liberal Violations ==
American [[liberals]] have attempted to use the so-called [[Fairness Doctrine]] and political correctness in order to silence conservative viewpoints. These ideologically-motivated attempts to limit free speech are in direct violation of the First Amendment, specifically, and, by extension, the entire U.S. [[Constitution]].

Many liberals also believe in "hate speech" laws, which allow the government to silence "offensive" views, including criticism of the homosexual agenda, "racist" speech (often defined broadly to include opposition to mass immigration) and "Islamophobia."

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

{{US amendments}}

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Bill of Rights]]

Public schools in the United States

2018-05-15T02:40:22Z

Homeschoolt: Added information on Censorship and self-defense

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Because of violence, vandalism, and other undesirable elements, this public school has a glaring sign warning of the on-campus surveillance cameras at its parking lot entrance.]]
'''Public schools in the [[United States]]''' are government sponsored institutions intended to teach children up through 12th grade. They are generally split into lower-level "Grade School," "Middle School" and "High School." There are also some "Technical Schools" for training in specific skills.

Public schools have become predominantly [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend more than $410 billion annually at a cost of more than $10,000 per student. [[Liberals]] censor [[classroom prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], sharing of [[faith]] in classrooms during school hours, and teaching [[Bible]]-based [[morality]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Mandatory [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual indoctrination]] is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref> The failures of underperforming public schools are a paradigm of [[socialism]], along with [[landfills]] and the [[Canada|Canadian]] health care system.

The following are characteristics of US public schools:

*30% of public school students fail to graduate from [[high school]],<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and one study found that only 32% of all students in the high school class of 2001 left high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities, the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%.<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% of students leave high school unqualified to attend four-year college, and many are unable to hold a steady job.<ref name="graduate"/>
*A 2007 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 77% of students between eighth and 12th grade had used illicit drugs.<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002]</ref> Fatal overdoses are common but underreported.<ref>Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref> Public schools are required to present [[Drug education|drug "education"]] to kids.
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*About half of the viable pregnancies among girls attending public school end in [[abortion]]s and about half end in birth. Public schools "[[Sex education|educate]]" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame [to [[teenage pregnancy]]]," the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% of students had been dangerously "[[binge drinking]]" in the previous 30 days, and 50% of seniors regularly drink illegally, according to a 2007 study of Ottawa County, Michigan.<ref>The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press: Ottawa County confronts teen drinking, By Greg Chandler, December 04, 2008 [http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_county_confronts_teen_d.html]</ref><ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% of students become [[Addiction|addicted]] to [[cigarettes]]<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a [[Homosexual Agenda|pro-homosexual]] student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the Bible, even as [[Bible history|history]] and literature
*35% of students are overweight
*Health screening of public schools in Memphis, Tennessee, found that nearly 10% of students have mental health problems.
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement.
{{See also|Public school culture}}
==History==
===Religious origins===
In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

====Curricula used====
According to [[Noah Webster]], "the books used were chiefly or whole Dilworth's Spelling Books, the Psalter, Testament and Bible".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DYVX2qf5xIAC&pg=PA118|last1=Gutjahr|first1=Paul C.|title=An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880|date=1999|work=[[Stanford University]] Press|pages=118}}</ref> Other sources such as the U.S. Office of Education note the following books used: The ABC, the Horn Book, the New England Primer, the Bible, Catechisms, and the Psalters.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gwENAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA8-PA19|title=Statistics of Land-grant Colleges and Universities, Volume 1, Issues 1-26|date=1921|work=Office of Education|pages=18–19}}</ref>

''[[The New England Primer]]'' is of particular note given its widespread use over such a long period of time.<ref name=encyclopedia>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e6YoCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA874|title=Encyclopedia of Christian Education, Volume 3|date=2015|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|pages=874}}</ref> The ''Primer'', also known as ''The Little Bible'', was in use in schools for over 150 years.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-New-England-Primer The New-England Primer], [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]</ref>

===Importation of the Prussian model===
In the mid 19th century, [[Horace Mann]], an early education reformer, studied the methods of [[Prussian Education]] and brought them back to the [[United States]]. According to [[John Dewey]]:
{{cquote|Horace Mann and the disciples of [[Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi|Pestalozzi]] did their peculiar missionary work so completely as intellectually to crowd the conservative to the wall. For half a century after their time the ethical emotion, the bulk of exhortation, the current formulae and catchwords, the distinctive principles of theory have been found on the side of progress, of what is known as reform. The supremacy of self-activity, the symmetrical development of all the powers, the priority of character to information, the necessity of putting the real before the symbol, the concrete before the abstract, the necessity of following the order of nature and not the order of human convention - all these ideas, at the outset so revolutionary, have filtered into the pedagogic consciousness and become the commonplace of pedagogic writing and of the gatherings where teachers meet for inspiration and admonition.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JXkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA332|last1=Dewey|first1=John|title=Journal of Proceedings and Addresses|date=1901|work=[[National Education Association]]}}</ref>}}
Mann would travel to [[Prussia]] in 1843 to visit the schools and study them.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UrxSUMN4-FsC&pg=PA224|last1=Karier|first1=Clarence J.|title=The Individual, Society, and Education: A History of American Educational Ideas|date=1986|publisher=University of Illinois Press|isbn=978-0252013096|quote="In 1843, it was these Pestalozzian practices which so impressed Horace Mann on his visit to the Prussian Schools.}}</ref>

====Secularization====
According to historian Ellwood Cubberly:
{{cquote|He(Horace Mann) will always be regarded as perhaps the greatest of the "founders" of our American system of free public schools. No one did more than he to establish in the minds of the American people the conception that education should be universal, non-sectarian, and free, and that its aim should be social efficiency, civic virtue, and character, rather than mere learning or the advancement of sectarian ends.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J_tEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA167|last1=Cubberley|first1=Ellwood. P|title=Public Education in the United States: A Study and Interpretation of American Educational History; an Introductory Textbook Dealing with the Larger Problems of Present-day Education in the Light of Their Historical Development|date=1919}}</ref>}}

John Dewey regarded Horace Mann as the "patron saint of progressive education."<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t7QTC8NuGL8C&pg=PA181|last1=Dewey|first1=John|title=The Later Works, 1925-1953: 1935-1937|publisher=SIU Press|date=1987}}</ref>

===20th century===
Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7V83obZcnvkC&pg=PA34|last1=Mathison|first1=Sandra|last2=Ross|first2=E. Wayne|title=Battleground : Schools|date=2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|quote=""Mann was eventually successful, and in 1852 Massachusetts passed the first compulsory education laws in North America."}}</ref> by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

==Improvement of early childhood education==
Many public schools have launched pre-kindergarten programs for 3 and 4-year-old children. Some states have shifted from half-day kindergartens to programs that match the school day schedule of the other grades. Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia require full-day kindergarten.

Research has demonstrated the importance of testing third graders for reading ability. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia require non-proficient readers to repeat third grade if they fail a reading test.

Historically, early childhood education focused on reading and writing. However, the research shows that young children's minds are receptive to math and logic. So public schools are adding Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM Education) to the lower grades.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/strengthening-the-kindergarten-third-grade-continuum.aspx|title=Strengthening the Kindergarten-Third Grade Continuum|date=December 21, 2016|accessdate=June 17, 2017}}</ref>
==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref> Liberal politicians are the most frequent opponents of initiatives designed to build moral fiber in the public school system, with organizations like the [[ACLU]] and teacher's unions devoting a significant amount of their resources towards this end. In 2010, a school board in [[North Dakota]] decided to change the name of their mascot from the "Satans." Liberals unrolled a large-scale media campaign that blanketed the district with pro-Satan propaganda in an attempt to keep the name, but they were unsuccessful.<ref>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-11/news/ct-perspec-0311-things-20120311_1_devil-man-great-deceiver-native-americans</ref>

=== Prayer ===

{{See also|Classroom prayer}}

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] stated, "Nothing in the [[First Amendment]] converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door."—President Clinton, July 12, 1998<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the [[Clinton administration]] and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in public schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

===Teaching of Islam in the public schools===
Public school textbooks have been found to be portraying [[Islam]] in a positive light. Some world history textbooks in [[Florida]] claim ''Muslims profess to worship the same God as Christians and Jews'', women historically had more rights in the Islamic world than the Christian world, and [[Jihad]] is not a violent movement, among other falsehoods. These lies have caused patriots some areas of the state to complain to local school boards, but not much has been done by the boards to actually remove the Islamic propaganda.

In California seventh grade social studies classes, students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the civilizations of Islam in the Middle Ages. Hence, Islam is one of eleven units taught in the class.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/islam.asp|title=Islam Studies in California Schools|date=April 5, 2015|accessdate=July 30,3027}}</ref><ref>Nazarian, Adelle (February 2, 2015). [http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/02/02/is-islamic-indoctrination-being-taught-in-la-public-schools/ Is Islamic Indoctrination Being Taught in LA Public Schools?] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 30, 2017.</ref> In addition, a [[San Diego]] school district worked with [[CAIR]] to add "anti-Islamophobia" classes.<ref>Moons, Michelle (April 23, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/04/23/san-diego-school-district-pushes-forward-cair-assisted-anti-islamophobia-plan-for-fall/ San Diego School District Pushes CAIR-Assisted ‘Anti-Islamophobia’ Plan]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 30, 2017.</ref>

==Censorship==

Public schools enforce liberal ideology through aggressive censorship of right-wing and conservative students, including for speech or conduct occurring off school grounds. Conservatives, as well as some libertarian organizations, have challenged instances of school censorship under well-established legal precedent protecting free speech against all state actors, including public schools. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2018/03/gun_group_says_it_will_sue_school_after_students_a.html|title=HS students' suspension over gun range photo ignites uproar, potential lawsuit|date=April 5, 2015|accessdate=July 30,3027}}</ref>

==Gender disparity==
Public schools as of late have seen girls' scores soar above boys' because schools have been geared toward the needs of girls and schools seek to emasculate boys by preventing healthy roughhousing and having psychiatrists prescribe boys drugs such as Ritalin. Then boys often come to hate school because radical feminists seek to prevent men from being men and forcing males to go through counseling to "discuss their feelings" and other liberal hogwash treating all students as if they were female. Colleges, because of this trend, see a trend of 60/40 female to male ratio because of feminist drivel such as romance novels in literature and ineffective therapy and attempts to push feminine traits on boys and young men making them frustrated and fed up with the system unless they agree to the school's desire to become effeminate.

Schools commonly suspend students for defending themselves from violent bullying, even though that is illegal under the laws of all 50 states which protect the right to self-defense.

Liberal ideology has also eliminated most male role models in public schools, such that less than a quarter of the teachers are men now.<ref>http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28</ref>

In areas on such standardized tests as ACT and SAT, girls have typically scored higher in areas such as mathematics and science. Colleges have become majority female, and the feminization of men is strong on college campuses with events that openly advocate female superiority. Females are also intent on emasculating males by forcing them to see "chick flicks" and concerts of female singers which also promote feminist nonsense, strongly continuing a trend that begins in high school which results in a large number of males taking up historically female programs such as psychology and nursing; this begins in school where teachers and administrators teach boys and girls to be girls and not only condone but encourage such emasculation which only continues throughout the boys' lives as learned behaviors are strongest during the crucial formative years these boys are in school.

Most U.S. public schools receive federal funding. Those that do are subject to [[Title IX]] which among other things requires equal access to extra curricular activities and sports.

==Suppression and intolerance of alternative views==
Several courts, including the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], which frequently engage in [[judicial activism]], have ruled that teaching [[creationism]]<ref>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html</ref> and [[intelligent design]] in public schools is unconstitutional because they claim that such teachings would amount to a government establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.<ref>''See'' ''Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 765</ref> Hypocritically, nothing has been done to remove the religions of Secular Humanism and Islam from the schools.

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July–August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
{{See also|Textbook bias}}

[[Textbook]]s (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal bias]] exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—[[marriage]], [[religion]], [[politics]], and [[business]]. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread [[secular]] and [[liberal]] mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]".<ref>''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the [[University of Dayton]], wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the [[Founding Fathers]] wanted a "wall of [[Separation of church and state|separation" between church and state]], that "[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] only because he needed [[Black Soldiers in the Civil War|black soldiers]]", and that "[[Mikhail Gorbachev]], not [[Ronald Reagan]], was responsible for ending the [[Cold War]]".<ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

Evidence for bias in school textbooks includes promotion of [[Homosexual]] agenda, support of liberal viewpoint, as well as support of the unproven theory of evolution. Most Biology textbooks do not provide the [[Creationist]] viewpoint a chance, or even a second thought.

===Non-Dismissal of tenured teachers===
Due to the strength of the nation's teachers' [[Labor union|union]], it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with [[tenure]]. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest [[school district]], Los Angeles Unified School district]]
== 4-day week ==
In order to save on transportation costs and reduce time spent on travel, many states have been experimenting with holding school on four days a week leaving the fifth day for medical appointments and athletic events. In such programs, the school day is lengthened to provide the same number of hours per week of instruction. The option is more frequently used in large rural school districts. These states include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Washington. In states which have legislation permitting a 4-day school week, each school district decides whether to implement it. Arkansas, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia and Washington have no schools using the option.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/school-calendar-four-day-school-week-overview.aspx|title=Four-Day School Weeks|accessdate=June 17, 2017}}</ref>
==Notable graduates==
=== Before 1962 ===
Given that public schools educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school-sponsored prayer in 1962. Here is an impressive list of people who attended public schools ''before'' the banning of school-sponsored prayer.

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930s.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961.<ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

=== After 1962 ===
Here is a mostly unimpressive list of people who attended public school ''after'' school-sponsored prayer was banned in 1962:

*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981; dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970s.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*[[John Sununu]], former one-term Senator from [[New Hampshire]], graduated from Salem High School in the 1970s;<ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html</ref> claiming to be [[pro-life]], Sununu arranged for the nomination of [[David Souter]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], where he then repeatedly voted on the side of [[abortion]]
*[[John Edwards]], indicted in 2011 on allegations arising from his affair with a mistress, was a former one-term Senator from [[North Carolina]] and two-time unsuccessful candidate for nomination for president, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960s.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*[[Spike Lee]], producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Laura Bush]] attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964); came out in support of [[gay marriage]] and [[abortion]] in 2010.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/laura-bush-supports-gay-marriage-abortion/story?id=10629213</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964, and became the only president impeached in the 20th century.
*[[Anthony Weiner]], a congressman who resigned in disgrace in 2011 after first denying but then confirming an indecent use of [[Twitter]], and later dropped out of the race for New York City Mayor following a second sex scandal, graduated from a public high school in [[Brooklyn]].
*[[Steve Jobs]], founder of [[Apple Inc.]], graduated from Homestead High School in Cupertino, CA in 1972; his colleague, [[Steve Wozniak]], graduated from the same high school in 1968.
*[[Eminem]], a liberal [[rapper]], repeatedly failed 9th grade in public school and ultimately dropped out.
*[[Alan Colmes]], a liberal news commentator, attended public school in [[New York City]].
*[[Sarah Palin]], vice presidential candidate on the [[Republican Party]] ticket in 2008 and favorite of some [[Tea Party]] groups, went to [[Wasilla High School]] and graduated in 1982 and then attended 5 different colleges before becoming more [[conservative]] later in life.<ref>http://outhouserag.typepad.com/outhouserag/2008/09/sarah-palin-198.html</ref>
*[[Rick Perry]], [[Texas]] governor, infringed on [[parental rights]] by requiring young girls to receive an HPV vaccine.
*[[Kenneth D. Cockrell]], [[Texas]] Graduated from Rockdale High School, Rockdale, Texas, in 1968. A veteran of five spaceflights, Cockrell has logged more than 1,560 hours in space.<ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/cockrell.htmll</ref>
*[[Russell Alan Hulse]], [[New York]] Graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, in 1966. Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.<ref name="alumni.bxscience.edu">http://alumni.bxscience.edu/?page=NotableAlumni</ref>
*[[Richard Axel]], [[New York]] Graduated from Stuyvesant High School, New York, New York, in 1963. Winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel</ref>
*[[Hugh David Politzer]], [[New York]] Graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, in 1966. Winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.<ref name="alumni.bxscience.edu"/>
*[[Christine O'Donnell]] graduated from Moorestown High School in 1987.<ref>[http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010100363&nclick_check=1 "Delaware politics: From middle-class New Jersey, moral activist Christine O'Donnell knew 'God was calling'", ''Delaware Online'']</ref>
*[[Scott Walker]] graduated from Delavan-Darien High School in 1986.<ref>[http://walworthcountytoday.com/news/2010/sep/07/rock-county-close-home-walker/ Ames, Ann Marie, "Rock County Close to Home for Walker", ''Walworth County Today'', Sept. 7, 2010]</ref>
*[[Paul Ryan]], an establishment [[Republican]], graduated from Joseph A. Craig High School, Janesville, WI in 1988.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/06/16/politics/wis-ryan/</ref>
*[[Sharron Angle]] (born 1949) graduated from Wooster High School in Reno, Nevada.<ref>[http://www.sharronangle.com/sharron-angle-biography "Sharron Angle, Biography"]</ref>
*[[Jon Huntsman]], Republican Presidential candidate and former Governor of Utah, attended Highland High School in Salt Lake City, Utah before he dropped out in 1978 to pursue a career as a rock and roll keyboardist.<ref>[http://www.jon2012.com/jon]</ref>
*[[Michelle Bachmann]], Republican member of the House of Representatives graduated from Anoka High School, Anoka, Minnesota in 1974.<ref>[http://www.startribune.com/local/north/129276683.html?refer=y]</ref>
*[[Mike Huckabee]], former Republican Governor of Arkansas, graduated from Hope High School, Hope Arkansas, in 1974.<ref>[http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=108]</ref>
*[[Benjamin Netanyahu]], Prime Minister of Israel, Graduated from Cheltenham High School, Wyncote, Pennsylvania, in 1967.<ref>[http://cheltenhamalumni.org/BIOS/netanyahu-benjamin.htm]</ref>
*[[Rand Paul]], Republican Senator, Graduated from Brazoswood High School, Clute, Texas in 1981.<ref>[http://politics.laws.com/rand-paul]</ref>

==See also==
* [[Public school culture]]
* [[Atheism and public schools]]
* [[Parental rights]] (focusing on the rights of parents to control the education, upbringing and discipline of their children)
* [[Education in the United Kingdom]]
* [[Essay:Worst Liberal Falsehoods in School]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Liberalism}}

==External links==
*[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1610/466/Dumb_As_A_Rock:_You_Will_Be_Absolutely_Amazed_At_The_Things_That_U.S._High_School_Students_Do_Not_Know.html Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know]
*[http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/28/9-notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews 8 Bizarre Teacher Scandals You Won't Believe]

[[Category:Schools]]
[[Category:United States History]]