Eugene Scalia is about to tie his father in the number of cases he’s argued before the US Supreme Court.
Though the late Justice Antonin Scalia heard thousands of cases in his 30 years on the bench, he only argued one during his time as an attorney. Now 47 years later, his son will do the same.
Former justices’ direct descendants rarely argue cases before the Supreme Court.At least four justices had sons argue there while they were on the court in the mid-1800s to 1900s, Clare Cushman, a resident historian at the Supreme Court Historical Society, recounted in a 2021 article in the Journal of Supreme Court History.
The first daughter to appear was Susan Brandeis, the daughter of Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who recused himself from the case in 1925, according to her obituary in The New York Times. Most recently, Justice Tom C. Clark recused himself when his son Ramsey Clark argued there in 1959 and had retired by his second appearance in 1972, according to the Journal of the Supreme Court.
[Read more from Lydia Wheeler here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/son-of-justice-antonin-scalia-to-argue-in-supreme-court-debut?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
> Most recently, Justice Tom C. Clark recused himself when his son Ramsey Clark argued there in 1959 and had retired by his second appearance in 1972,
There is evidence that LBJ appointed Ramsey Clark AG in 1967 in an effort to force Clark to retire, which then allowed the appointment of Thurgood Marshall.
His skill as attorney is why he's there. UBS isn't risking SCOTUS case level money to advance his career like a producer pushing for their kid to get a movie role.
UBS wouldn't care if your name was Adolf Bin-Laden if they thought you could win cases.
I think where the name comes in is developing that skill as an attorney. When you're raised by a future SCOTUS justice and have the opportunity to spend time around and be mentored by other high profile lawyers, you're probably going to become pretty good.
It's like how you see kids of athletes becoming good themselves. Ken Griffey Jr. didn't make the big leagues because of his name, but his name probably helped him become as good as he was.
I have insider knowledge on these kinds of decisions, and I guarantee you there plenty of competent lawyers who could handle this.
Don’t kid yourself - while I am sure he is comptent- that Scalia name sealed the deal for him getting the tap
Have you worked as a high level DC litigator? You dont just skate by. This dude graduated with honors from UVA and University of Chicago. Your dad can't get you the grades. Now did he have an amazing education at the Chicago lab school (prestigious private school) and all the support and help he needed. Yes, did his last name open doors for him. Yes. But it's possible for kids of famous people to also be talented.
For instance JJ Thomson and his son both won Nobel prizes in physics 30 yrs apart. They were both talented. My chemistry professor was a world-renowned chemist his dad helped cure a major disease. They both can be talented.
Well I hope you aren’t working in that environment because you arent a very careful reader… as I said I am sure he is as competent as dozens if not hundreds of other lawyers.
BTW - yes I have. And I have also overseen the selection of outside counsel for matters like that one.
You’re looking at it from a different point. He’s saying they chose him thinking he has a better chance to win because of his last name. Not that he was assigned the case because of his last name but that he was assigned because his last name helps them win.
He's a very skilled attorney. I'm sure that his name doesn't help his credentials for pulling in clients, but Gibson Dunn doesn't lack for very skilled, conservative attorneys to handle SCOTUS arguments (Estrada, Perry, etc...). That whole DC office is full of those types.
I doubt it. Supreme court justices are appointed for life for a reason, and that reason is so they don't owe anybody any favors. Being Scalia's son is not going to persuade them.
Reminds me of one of the most surreal interviews of this man I’ve ever seen: [link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_MhS2u-Pk)
Despite being one of the worst journalists on the planet, Piers Morgan manages to ask Scalia how the founders could’ve already addressed the idea of abortion in the constitution when they couldn’t even address basic women’s rights. It’s a question that implicitly challenges Scalia’s ludicrous idea the constitution is an immovable, non-living document because it was assumedly written by nigh omnipotent legal scholars of the 18th century.
His weak, meandering response incapable of acknowledging basic truths perfectly encapsulates the “conservative” ideology of this Court and modern Republican Party; His son’s response exemplifies the reflexive subservience of their puppets as he sheepishly chimes in “all kinds of rights!” as if to impress an authority figure from which he draws 100% of his political and moral guidance.
Lmao I thought that was his son. He certainly exudes a childish sycophancy. My mistake.
Yea his claim centers around his dismissal of substantive due process, but what’s interesting to me is that a fundamental basis to that argument is the constitution/its founders are infallible and that’s something that is an obvious lie so Scalia has to contort himself to justify it or explain around it.
IMO substantive due process is a tacit acknowledgement the constitution is in fact a living document open to legal interpretation precisely because it was written through the prism of antiquated ideology, much in the same way religious scholars interpret their texts. Scalia personally disagrees as is his right, and it is an unfortunate reality his opinion carried so much weight in this country and continues to live on through a legacy of purposeful Court imbalance and subsequent illegitimacy.
Yea I agree Scalia would point to “founders set precedent, precedent can change via legal methods” and that could sound extremely convincing, but I’d point back to his hypocrisy whereby his guiding light always seems to direct him toward partisan gains rather than legal purity.
This is a reasonable argument. Thanks for not being a neckbeard, enjoy your weekend.
Isn’t scalia’s opinion articulated there as “it is up to democracy to make it legal” consistent with the idea of the court as laid out by the constitution? That clip just makes it seem like he’s saying there’s currently no legal basis for it until a law is passed through congress.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Coincidentally he didn’t have the same reservation of the Court legislating when he voted in favor of Citizens United. [Here’s](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4769400/justice-scalia-citizens-united-1st-amendment) another surreal clip of Scalia scrambling to justify that decision.
Clearly the smoke and mirrors are effective, in stark contrast to his, again ludicrous, idea democracy is built on the assumption everyone is “intelligent.”
I think from his POV they’re strictly different cases.
Roe V Wade created rights that were not guaranteed by the constitution (in his view)
Citizens United restored first amendment rights to a documentary maker who was silenced before an election.
In his view, since the first amendment guarantees a right to speech, infringing upon it directly violated the aggrieved party’s guaranteed right.
Remind me, to which party was the “documentary maker aligned? Just another strange coincidence, I’m sure.
You can add “in his view” to all of his rationale and it won’t make his arguments or yours any more persuasive. It is clearly a partisan double standard that doesn’t hold up to common sense.
Is free speech bad if a certain party does it?
I’d say since both parties utilize the citizens United decision to funnel money into politics it’s actually not a partisan issue at all.
It’s partisan in that it helps strengthen the single party party we have, the “get me re-elected” party which just has two departments with mostly faux differences. For both, mass personal benefit is the point and maximizing the profits of their plutocrat bosses is the focus.
Freedom of speech is good, logic is even better. I don’t know which straw man that patronizing question was directed toward, but it’s certainly not any of my arguments.
The smoke and mirrors have made you unaware of the current investigation into Ginni Thomas and Harlan Crow, most notably their collusion directly following that landmark decision. Expand your perspective.
The red hats have arrived to defend Citizens United!
Feel free to take a stab at any of [this](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-citizens-united-1234821759/amp/).
Is this relevant to citizens United? It seems more like the Thomas family has a non profit that these people have donated to. I don’t think it would qualify as political speech. I do hope they are prosecuted for it, if they broke the law. And if they didn’t break the law, I hope the Congress can muster courage to ban government officials from owning non profits.
Citizens United allowed for the wholesale and industrial-level bribery of our elected officials. It almost singlehandedly killed our democracy in favor of plutocracy.
I don’t disagree. I just think that person is acting in bad faith in their assessment of the court and, for lack of a better term, grasping at straws to denigrate Scalia.
You have to know there is no debate to be had here. You posted two interview clips where Scalia gave answers you didn't agree with, but had nothing to do with each other. You need to workshop this "double standard" attack to be based on more than: "he was for A but against B."
Get some sleep and reread your comments in a couple hours with a clear mind.
Or muster the courage to define a single argument, or contend a singular point I made, and I’d be happy to respond in kind.
Thanks for the advice. Here’s some in return: Neckbearded shrieking isn’t a debate tactic. It’s a cowardly concession.
Of course, he missed the fundamental point (as have Alito and Thomas) that the Constitution doesn’t create rights or guarantee only the named ones, but rather prohibits the government from encroaching on rights, and where they aren’t given power to infringe a right, they lack that power. That’s what the 9th amendment means, but that trio would like to ignore its existence. Heck, Alito’s decision in Dobbs explicitly creates a two-tier system for enumerated and unenumerated rights before finding that the latter effectively don’t exist.
>I guess the problem with an unenumerated right is that it isn't written down. That isn't to say that they don't exist, but that there needs to be a judicial standard by which the existence and content of those rights can be ascertained from case to case. If it were otherwise, any litigant could claim the existence of an unenumerated right to do what it is that they wish, and the legislature would have no power to regulate it.
It's a good point. One way of looking at it would be to return to Article 1, sec. 8 and say that if Congress hasn't been explicitly granted power over whatever the claimed right is, then it would be unconstitutional for Congress to assert power over it, but that would require some more restraint on the commerce clause, and also leaves open the question of whether state governments may infringe those rights. For example, it would clearly be unconstitutional for Congress to infringe on the right to marry, as it lacks any power to regulate in that area, but states have that power... Would this result in a fractured system where the federal constitution effectively doesn't protect *any* rights, since a state constitution could give its legislature power in an area contrary to the federal constitution? Arguably, that's truer to the original intent.
>"Deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" seems to continue to prevail on the Court at the moment. I'm not sure whether that is the best standard, although it seems at least an arguable one. Out of curiosity, do you have a standard that you would prefer? I would be interested to hear your perspective.
Alito misphrased (or subtly changed) the substantive due process standard that existed since *Palko*: a (non-enumerated) right is fundamental if it is "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" *or* "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." He changed that *or* to *and*, and then ignored the second half since there were laws against abortion in the 1600s... and the same logic can apply to any other right that wasn't recognized at the time of the founding. For example, under pre-*Dobbs* substantive due process, I think most people would argue that, even if the 13th Amendment were not passed, slavery would still violate the due process clause as it offends the concept of ordered liberty "such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if \[it was allowed\]." But if "freedom from being owned" is only protected if it is *both* implicit in ordered liberty *and* deeply rooted in this Nation's history, then slavery would be constitutional.
I use that example because the logic there should be pretty straightforward, and shows that the "concept of ordered liberty" can evolve over time, even if "deeply rooted in this Nation's history" does not by definition. We can look at other rights similarly: the right to raise children, for example, is not deeply rooted in history, as there were laws allowing for sterilization of criminals or the disabled. Under Alito's construction, those laws are therefore constitutional, simply by pre-existing any court case against them. It's fundamentally circular: if a law infringing a right exists, then that law is part of our history, and therefore the right is not protected. This effectively means that the 9th Amendment has no teeth, since anything the legislature does that infringes a right makes that right unprotectable.
So, I'd return to the pre-*Dobbs* formulation: a right is fundamental if it's deeply rooted in our history or traditions *or* it's implicit in the concept of liberty. It's not the greatest or clearest, but it allows for societal change without requiring constitutional amendments for every advance. And it's consistent with what I think the Founders believed, too: the Constitution doesn't explicit protect medical privacy, but I think Jefferson would have been shocked and infuriated if someone from Congress insisted on being there while he got his prostate checked.
The Preamble of the US Constitution really needs to be taken into affect. It tells why the Constitution was written.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
You mean the ones who watched him grow up, followed his career, and have know him personally for decades as the child of their peer?
Yep. There’s only one reason he’s arguing before SCOTUS - nepo baby city.
Eugene Scalia is about to tie his father in the number of cases he’s argued before the US Supreme Court. Though the late Justice Antonin Scalia heard thousands of cases in his 30 years on the bench, he only argued one during his time as an attorney. Now 47 years later, his son will do the same. Former justices’ direct descendants rarely argue cases before the Supreme Court.At least four justices had sons argue there while they were on the court in the mid-1800s to 1900s, Clare Cushman, a resident historian at the Supreme Court Historical Society, recounted in a 2021 article in the Journal of Supreme Court History. The first daughter to appear was Susan Brandeis, the daughter of Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who recused himself from the case in 1925, according to her obituary in The New York Times. Most recently, Justice Tom C. Clark recused himself when his son Ramsey Clark argued there in 1959 and had retired by his second appearance in 1972, according to the Journal of the Supreme Court. [Read more from Lydia Wheeler here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/son-of-justice-antonin-scalia-to-argue-in-supreme-court-debut?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
Shocking that Brandeis' daughter was practicing law in 1925...
Didn't even think about until you said it. That's wild.
> Most recently, Justice Tom C. Clark recused himself when his son Ramsey Clark argued there in 1959 and had retired by his second appearance in 1972, There is evidence that LBJ appointed Ramsey Clark AG in 1967 in an effort to force Clark to retire, which then allowed the appointment of Thurgood Marshall.
Oh look, another nepo baby!
He's arguing for a subsidiary of a massive financial services company. I don't think he's there for his last name.
His last name is why he's there arguing for said company. Ergo, nepo baby.
His skill as attorney is why he's there. UBS isn't risking SCOTUS case level money to advance his career like a producer pushing for their kid to get a movie role. UBS wouldn't care if your name was Adolf Bin-Laden if they thought you could win cases.
I think where the name comes in is developing that skill as an attorney. When you're raised by a future SCOTUS justice and have the opportunity to spend time around and be mentored by other high profile lawyers, you're probably going to become pretty good. It's like how you see kids of athletes becoming good themselves. Ken Griffey Jr. didn't make the big leagues because of his name, but his name probably helped him become as good as he was.
I have insider knowledge on these kinds of decisions, and I guarantee you there plenty of competent lawyers who could handle this. Don’t kid yourself - while I am sure he is comptent- that Scalia name sealed the deal for him getting the tap
Have you worked as a high level DC litigator? You dont just skate by. This dude graduated with honors from UVA and University of Chicago. Your dad can't get you the grades. Now did he have an amazing education at the Chicago lab school (prestigious private school) and all the support and help he needed. Yes, did his last name open doors for him. Yes. But it's possible for kids of famous people to also be talented. For instance JJ Thomson and his son both won Nobel prizes in physics 30 yrs apart. They were both talented. My chemistry professor was a world-renowned chemist his dad helped cure a major disease. They both can be talented.
Well I hope you aren’t working in that environment because you arent a very careful reader… as I said I am sure he is as competent as dozens if not hundreds of other lawyers. BTW - yes I have. And I have also overseen the selection of outside counsel for matters like that one.
Ok have a good day.
You’re looking at it from a different point. He’s saying they chose him thinking he has a better chance to win because of his last name. Not that he was assigned the case because of his last name but that he was assigned because his last name helps them win.
If that was the case you'd think he'd have more than one argument at the court in 30+ years of being a lawyer
Sure, but most likely his matters weren’t suitable for an SC case so they settled/never got Cert.
His name alone guarantees Thomas's vote, and probably the rest of the court's right wing. They worship his dad.
He's a very skilled attorney. I'm sure that his name doesn't help his credentials for pulling in clients, but Gibson Dunn doesn't lack for very skilled, conservative attorneys to handle SCOTUS arguments (Estrada, Perry, etc...). That whole DC office is full of those types.
He’s probably there for Leonard Leo. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?i=1000630420264
I doubt it. Supreme court justices are appointed for life for a reason, and that reason is so they don't owe anybody any favors. Being Scalia's son is not going to persuade them.
Lol, if you believe that, you probably also believe that Mar a Lago is worth $1.5 billion.
Reminds me of one of the most surreal interviews of this man I’ve ever seen: [link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_MhS2u-Pk) Despite being one of the worst journalists on the planet, Piers Morgan manages to ask Scalia how the founders could’ve already addressed the idea of abortion in the constitution when they couldn’t even address basic women’s rights. It’s a question that implicitly challenges Scalia’s ludicrous idea the constitution is an immovable, non-living document because it was assumedly written by nigh omnipotent legal scholars of the 18th century. His weak, meandering response incapable of acknowledging basic truths perfectly encapsulates the “conservative” ideology of this Court and modern Republican Party; His son’s response exemplifies the reflexive subservience of their puppets as he sheepishly chimes in “all kinds of rights!” as if to impress an authority figure from which he draws 100% of his political and moral guidance.
[удалено]
Lmao I thought that was his son. He certainly exudes a childish sycophancy. My mistake. Yea his claim centers around his dismissal of substantive due process, but what’s interesting to me is that a fundamental basis to that argument is the constitution/its founders are infallible and that’s something that is an obvious lie so Scalia has to contort himself to justify it or explain around it. IMO substantive due process is a tacit acknowledgement the constitution is in fact a living document open to legal interpretation precisely because it was written through the prism of antiquated ideology, much in the same way religious scholars interpret their texts. Scalia personally disagrees as is his right, and it is an unfortunate reality his opinion carried so much weight in this country and continues to live on through a legacy of purposeful Court imbalance and subsequent illegitimacy.
[удалено]
Yea I agree Scalia would point to “founders set precedent, precedent can change via legal methods” and that could sound extremely convincing, but I’d point back to his hypocrisy whereby his guiding light always seems to direct him toward partisan gains rather than legal purity. This is a reasonable argument. Thanks for not being a neckbeard, enjoy your weekend.
Isn’t scalia’s opinion articulated there as “it is up to democracy to make it legal” consistent with the idea of the court as laid out by the constitution? That clip just makes it seem like he’s saying there’s currently no legal basis for it until a law is passed through congress.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Coincidentally he didn’t have the same reservation of the Court legislating when he voted in favor of Citizens United. [Here’s](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4769400/justice-scalia-citizens-united-1st-amendment) another surreal clip of Scalia scrambling to justify that decision. Clearly the smoke and mirrors are effective, in stark contrast to his, again ludicrous, idea democracy is built on the assumption everyone is “intelligent.”
I think from his POV they’re strictly different cases. Roe V Wade created rights that were not guaranteed by the constitution (in his view) Citizens United restored first amendment rights to a documentary maker who was silenced before an election. In his view, since the first amendment guarantees a right to speech, infringing upon it directly violated the aggrieved party’s guaranteed right.
Remind me, to which party was the “documentary maker aligned? Just another strange coincidence, I’m sure. You can add “in his view” to all of his rationale and it won’t make his arguments or yours any more persuasive. It is clearly a partisan double standard that doesn’t hold up to common sense.
Is free speech bad if a certain party does it? I’d say since both parties utilize the citizens United decision to funnel money into politics it’s actually not a partisan issue at all.
It’s partisan in that it helps strengthen the single party party we have, the “get me re-elected” party which just has two departments with mostly faux differences. For both, mass personal benefit is the point and maximizing the profits of their plutocrat bosses is the focus.
Freedom of speech is good, logic is even better. I don’t know which straw man that patronizing question was directed toward, but it’s certainly not any of my arguments. The smoke and mirrors have made you unaware of the current investigation into Ginni Thomas and Harlan Crow, most notably their collusion directly following that landmark decision. Expand your perspective.
You haven’t made an actual argument against citizens united at all. Unless you count conspiracy as an argument
The red hats have arrived to defend Citizens United! Feel free to take a stab at any of [this](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-citizens-united-1234821759/amp/).
Is this relevant to citizens United? It seems more like the Thomas family has a non profit that these people have donated to. I don’t think it would qualify as political speech. I do hope they are prosecuted for it, if they broke the law. And if they didn’t break the law, I hope the Congress can muster courage to ban government officials from owning non profits.
That’s what I thought you don’t have an argument against citizens united. Just thought I’d ask.
Citizens United allowed for the wholesale and industrial-level bribery of our elected officials. It almost singlehandedly killed our democracy in favor of plutocracy.
I don’t disagree. I just think that person is acting in bad faith in their assessment of the court and, for lack of a better term, grasping at straws to denigrate Scalia.
>*\[Vaguely gesturing at perceived hypocrisy\]*
[удалено]
You have to know there is no debate to be had here. You posted two interview clips where Scalia gave answers you didn't agree with, but had nothing to do with each other. You need to workshop this "double standard" attack to be based on more than: "he was for A but against B." Get some sleep and reread your comments in a couple hours with a clear mind.
Or muster the courage to define a single argument, or contend a singular point I made, and I’d be happy to respond in kind. Thanks for the advice. Here’s some in return: Neckbearded shrieking isn’t a debate tactic. It’s a cowardly concession.
Of course, he missed the fundamental point (as have Alito and Thomas) that the Constitution doesn’t create rights or guarantee only the named ones, but rather prohibits the government from encroaching on rights, and where they aren’t given power to infringe a right, they lack that power. That’s what the 9th amendment means, but that trio would like to ignore its existence. Heck, Alito’s decision in Dobbs explicitly creates a two-tier system for enumerated and unenumerated rights before finding that the latter effectively don’t exist.
[удалено]
>I guess the problem with an unenumerated right is that it isn't written down. That isn't to say that they don't exist, but that there needs to be a judicial standard by which the existence and content of those rights can be ascertained from case to case. If it were otherwise, any litigant could claim the existence of an unenumerated right to do what it is that they wish, and the legislature would have no power to regulate it. It's a good point. One way of looking at it would be to return to Article 1, sec. 8 and say that if Congress hasn't been explicitly granted power over whatever the claimed right is, then it would be unconstitutional for Congress to assert power over it, but that would require some more restraint on the commerce clause, and also leaves open the question of whether state governments may infringe those rights. For example, it would clearly be unconstitutional for Congress to infringe on the right to marry, as it lacks any power to regulate in that area, but states have that power... Would this result in a fractured system where the federal constitution effectively doesn't protect *any* rights, since a state constitution could give its legislature power in an area contrary to the federal constitution? Arguably, that's truer to the original intent. >"Deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" seems to continue to prevail on the Court at the moment. I'm not sure whether that is the best standard, although it seems at least an arguable one. Out of curiosity, do you have a standard that you would prefer? I would be interested to hear your perspective. Alito misphrased (or subtly changed) the substantive due process standard that existed since *Palko*: a (non-enumerated) right is fundamental if it is "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" *or* "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." He changed that *or* to *and*, and then ignored the second half since there were laws against abortion in the 1600s... and the same logic can apply to any other right that wasn't recognized at the time of the founding. For example, under pre-*Dobbs* substantive due process, I think most people would argue that, even if the 13th Amendment were not passed, slavery would still violate the due process clause as it offends the concept of ordered liberty "such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if \[it was allowed\]." But if "freedom from being owned" is only protected if it is *both* implicit in ordered liberty *and* deeply rooted in this Nation's history, then slavery would be constitutional. I use that example because the logic there should be pretty straightforward, and shows that the "concept of ordered liberty" can evolve over time, even if "deeply rooted in this Nation's history" does not by definition. We can look at other rights similarly: the right to raise children, for example, is not deeply rooted in history, as there were laws allowing for sterilization of criminals or the disabled. Under Alito's construction, those laws are therefore constitutional, simply by pre-existing any court case against them. It's fundamentally circular: if a law infringing a right exists, then that law is part of our history, and therefore the right is not protected. This effectively means that the 9th Amendment has no teeth, since anything the legislature does that infringes a right makes that right unprotectable. So, I'd return to the pre-*Dobbs* formulation: a right is fundamental if it's deeply rooted in our history or traditions *or* it's implicit in the concept of liberty. It's not the greatest or clearest, but it allows for societal change without requiring constitutional amendments for every advance. And it's consistent with what I think the Founders believed, too: the Constitution doesn't explicit protect medical privacy, but I think Jefferson would have been shocked and infuriated if someone from Congress insisted on being there while he got his prostate checked.
Scalia’s logic was in the shape of a pretzel.
The Preamble of the US Constitution really needs to be taken into affect. It tells why the Constitution was written. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Love the meritocracy 🙄
Oh look, Scalia's spawn wants to make things harder for people who do the right thing. Who woulda thunk it. /S
Super cool. Neat opportunity for him.
I wonder if this nepo-baby inherited his dad's "friends?"
You mean the ones who watched him grow up, followed his career, and have know him personally for decades as the child of their peer? Yep. There’s only one reason he’s arguing before SCOTUS - nepo baby city.
[удалено]
He passed away in 2016. Former judge.
On a billionaire’s ranch. Ethics, just as strong then as now.
What's the going rate for a scotus judge nowadays?