The following is an interview with journalist and author James Rosen about his new book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Rise-Greatness-1936-1986/dp/1684512271" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936-1986</a>” (Regnery Publishing, March 2023). 
<h3>DW: James, you’ve written several biographies about other Washington power brokers (John Mitchell, Dick Cheney). What attracted you to Justice Scalia?</h3>
Rosen: My work on “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Rise-Greatness-1936-1986/dp/1684512271" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936-1986</a>” can, in a sense, be traced back to my high school years, in the 1980s, when I first saw Justice Scalia on PBS’s <a href="https://www.learner.org/series/the-constitution-that-delicate-balance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“The Constitution: That Delicate Balance.”</a> It was a periodic show where a moderator, usually Fred Friendly, a former president of CBS News, explored hypothetical crises with a panel of eminent guests (e.g., Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor, Gerald Ford) in a theater-in-the-round setting before a live audience.
Scalia struck me, immediately and unmistakably, as different from the other panelists: trenchant and humorous, clever and compelling. By the time I became a Washington correspondent, in 1999, I had read his Princeton lectures, collected in “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law” (1997).
<div id="attachment_512252" style="width: 881px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512252" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="size-large wp-image-512252" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/GettyImages-1277396702-871x576.jpg" alt="" width="871" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-1277396702-871x576.jpg 871w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-1277396702-300x198.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-1277396702-768x508.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-1277396702-1536x1016.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-1277396702-2048x1354.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 871px) 100vw, 871px" />Janet Fries/Getty Images</div>
The ideas Scalia was championing were considered, at the time, revolutionary — or, more precisely: counter-revolutionary, a response to the Warren Court — but they made perfect sense to me, a non-lawyer. He argued that when judges or justices interpret the meaning of the Constitution or a statute, they should be guided by the original meaning of the law, what it was widely understood to mean at the time of its enactment, not through the prism of latter-day social or policy preferences.
To understand the law’s original meaning, Scalia argued further, the best evidence was not some floor debate, committee report, or other sound-and-fury ephemera of the legislative process; rather, the original meaning was to be derived, chiefly and decisively, from the text of the measure that was enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the president, an approach to Constitutional and statutory interpretation Scalia called “textualism.”
Again, to my layman’s eye, the notion that judges should rely chiefly on the text of a law when deciding its meaning seemed so … elemental … so obviously the correct approach, that any other amounted to mad flight from basic reading comprehension.
Upon arriving in the Capitol, I wrote to the justice, seeking an interview. Our correspondence over the next two years, humorous and revealing, and the pair of one-on-one lunches we shared at his beloved AV Ristorante — vinous, unforgettable, and off the record — convinced me I would write about him someday. While the discussions we had at those lunches will remain off the record, excerpts from our correspondence will appear in the second and final volume, “Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986–2016.”
<h3>DW: Rumor has it the young Antonin Scalia was a sharp student. Any validity to the rumor?</h3>
Rosen: This is no rumor — it’s documented fact!
Scalia was the only child of an Italian immigrant father who spoke no English when he arrived in America in 1920, but who became a renowned professor of Romance languages; and a mother who was herself the child of Italian immigrants and became an elementary school teacher.
The Scalias were devout Catholics. So from these early influences — the emphasis the Church placed on sacred texts, young Nino’s Jesuitical education, his parents’ devotion to the classics of literature and music — Antonin Scalia emerged with a profound respect for the inviolability of foundational texts. He carried this into his work as a jurist on the appellate bench and the Supreme Court.
Scalia graduated as valedictorian from his high school and his college, then magna cum laude from law school.
<div id="attachment_512297" style="width: 586px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512297" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-512297 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-576x576.jpg" alt="" width="576" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-576x576.jpg 576w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-300x300.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-150x150.jpg 150w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-768x768.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-1536x1536.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/14-ScaliaWedding_9-1960-rgb-2048x2048.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 576px) 100vw, 576px" />Courtesy of the Scalia family.</div>
<h3>DW: You interviewed several of Scalia’s former classmates. What was their impression of him and his academic acumen?</h3>
Rosen: Scalia attended Xavier High School in Manhattan, a rare hybrid of a Jesuit academic institution and military academy. He delighted, in later years, in recounting for audiences how he used to commute from Queens on the subway with his .22 rifle slung over his shoulder.
<div id="attachment_512298" style="width: 419px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512298" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-512298 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb-409x576.jpg" alt="" width="409" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb-409x576.jpg 409w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb-213x300.jpg 213w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb-768x1081.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb-1091x1536.jpg 1091w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb-1455x2048.jpg 1455w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/1953-Yearbook-Scalia-Senior-Photo-New-Xavier-rgb.jpg 1500w" sizes="(max-width: 409px) 100vw, 409px" />Courtesy of Xavier High School.</div>
A 1952 student newspaper profile of him – the first ever published – noted that Nino had “compiled one of the most enviable records at Xavier,” receiving 19 First Honor awards, one for each marking period, and the Gold Medal for class excellence every year. “His name,” the article said, “has become synonymous with exceptional accomplishment.”
The following year, Scalia graduated as Xavier valedictorian, his graduation photo showing a handsome, highly decorated cadet. “Nino” always remained popular with teachers and students alike. “He was a favorite of the Jesuits,” a classmate told me, “because he was bright and he was involved.”
Friends found Scalia unusually affable: quick-witted and self-deprecating, genuinely interested in others’ stories and problems. With endearing grandeur, Nino might commandeer a piano in someone’s house and lead an entire party in sing-alongs of show tunes or Christmas carols. “Classmates were intrigued by Scalia’s personality,” another early profile said, “a combination of scholarly seriousness and life-of-the-party gregariousness.”
 Yet one of Scalia’s strengths was his enormous capacity for hard work. “People just competed for second,” a friend recalled, “he was just so superior academically.” “All my life I had been good in academics,” Scalia said. “I kept my nose to the grindstone.” The justice once said he did not “look back with misty-eyed mellow reflection upon my years at Harvard [Law School],” which he recalled as “years of really terribly hard work … I don’t think I have ever studied harder, especially during the first year.”
<div id="attachment_512299" style="width: 878px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512299" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-512299 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/28-C35998-15-rgb-868x576.jpg" alt="" width="868" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/28-C35998-15-rgb-868x576.jpg 868w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/28-C35998-15-rgb-300x199.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/28-C35998-15-rgb-768x510.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/28-C35998-15-rgb-1536x1020.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/28-C35998-15-rgb-2048x1359.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 868px) 100vw, 868px" />7/7/1986 President Reagan with Judge Antonin Scalia in the Oval Office. Courtesy of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library And Museum.</div>
<h3>DW: You were able to get your hands on Justice Scalia&#8217;s early report cards. What did they reveal about Scalia the student? </h3>
Rosen: With the assistance of the Scalia family, I obtained the future justice’s report card from P.S. 13 in Queens, where he grew up. Of 45 grades recorded in nine subjects, young Nino posted 40 As, with five lonely Bs arising in four subjects (composition, geography, history/civics, and sewing), each swiftly redressed, in every case, with an A. 
“Scalia: Rise to Greatness” contains the most detailed account of Scalia’s academic career in print. 
<h3>DW: Scalia would go on to become a professor at both UVA and The University of Chicago. Were you able to interview any of his former students? Was there a common theme?</h3>
Rosen: I interviewed several students from his periods as a professor at the University of Virginia Law School from 1967-71 (the beautiful <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Rise-Greatness-1936-1986/dp/1684512271/ref=asc_df_1684512271/?tag=hyprod-20&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=598351558985&amp;hvpos=&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=4099368944843532843&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=9007526&amp;hvtargid=pla-1648037489265&amp;psc=1&amp;asin=1684512271&amp;revisionId=&amp;format=4&amp;depth=1">cover</a> of “SRTG,” designed by the very talented John Caruso of Regnery, uses a rare photograph from the archives of a UVA student newspaper); and at the University of Chicago Law School from 1977-1982 (another rare image, in the book’s photographs section, provided by the school, shows Professor Scalia in his Chicago classroom). 
<div id="attachment_512301" style="width: 209px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512301" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-512301 size-medium" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-199x300.jpg" alt="" width="199" height="300" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-199x300.jpg 199w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-383x576.jpg 383w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-768x1156.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-1020x1536.jpg 1020w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/Scalia-Rise-to-Greatness-COVER-scaled.jpg 1701w" sizes="(max-width: 199px) 100vw, 199px" />Courtesy Regnery Publishing</div>
Students recalled great displays of theatricality from Scalia, an avid high school actor; these included his running back and forth to opposite ends of the stage to act out the parties disputing a contract. One student shared with me, for the first time anywhere, what Professor Scalia said to his students on the grim morning after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy — as the class’s scheduled test went forward. 
Scalia’s FBI files, declassified after his death, ran hundreds of pages: the results of four background checks in 14 years as Scalia rose through the executive and judicial branches. The agents recorded only excellent ratings for Scalia from his students. By many accounts, however, Scalia’s time at Chicago, and that of Maureen Scalia and their large family, proved less happy than the sunny experience they had enjoyed at UVA. While Scalia still drew excellent ratings from his Chicago students, there were some incidents there, and some criticism of him, that hadn’t been present at UVA. In between the two academic posts, of course, Scalia served in the Nixon and Ford administrations; so the frictions of the Chicago period must in some measure be attributed to a newly politicized view, among Chicago’s students and its faculty, of Scalia and his government service.
<div id="attachment_512398" style="width: 885px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512398" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="size-large wp-image-512398" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/GettyImages-105065262-875x576.jpg" alt="" width="875" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-105065262-875x576.jpg 875w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-105065262-300x198.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-105065262-768x506.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-105065262-1536x1012.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/GettyImages-105065262-2048x1349.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 875px) 100vw, 875px" />Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</div>
* * *
James Rosen is a leading reporter, historian, and bestselling author. He is the chief White House correspondent for Newsmax, following two decades of acclaimed reporting at Fox News. His new book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Rise-Greatness-1936-1986/dp/1684512271" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936-1986,</a>” is now available through Regnery Publishing, March 2023.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Justice Antonin Scalia Gives Talk In Virginia

An Original: New Book ‘Scalia’ Traces ‘Exceptional Accomplishments’ Of Justice’s Early Academic Career

An Original: New Book 'Scalia' Traces 'Exceptional Accomplishments' Of Justice’s Early Academic Career

Antonin Scalia

Books

Readers Pass

Supreme Court

U.S.

Supreme Court decisions sadly invite the deepest divisions in American civic life today. A simple tonic to this endless divide would be for Americans to actually read the decisions they protest and fight about so much.
Do you consider yourself to be a warrior in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">pro-life movement</a>? Is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf">religious liberty</a> and the increasing domain of secularization a central concern to you? Do you consider the rise of the “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">administrative state</a>” to be a form of soft tyranny that is incompatible with representative democracy?
Or, do you feel like <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf">the Second Amendment</a> is either outdated or under endless assault by Blue America?
No matter which issue concerns you the most, chances are we Americans are debating it in some fashion. Thus, here is a suggestion that will significantly improve the state of American civic discourse. I know it’s abundantly optimistic and maybe a bit naive, but here it is: pick at least one Supreme Court decision from this year’s consequential term and take an hour to read it.
I’m serious.
Don’t treat these decisions and the entire judicial branch as arenas for gladiatorial legal throw-downs. In reality, as Woodrow Wilson once observed, the Supreme Court is “a constitutional convention in continuous session.” Every year, nine extraordinary and unique legal minds have an extended conversation amongst themselves about the meaning of the Constitution on a variety of issues.
This year it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states">abortion</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions">gun rights</a> and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-is-just-incredible-to-know-that-i-did-nothing-wrong-joseph-kennedy-celebrates-scotus-win-for-religious-freedom">free exercise of religion</a>. Next year it will be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/briefing/supreme-court-abortion.html">affirmative action and election law.</a> And unlike the other two branches, the judicial branch does something utterly extraordinary: it bestows a civic gift to the American people, a gift we rarely unwrap. The Supreme Court justices go to great lengths to explain why they do what they do and why they think the way they think. As Americans, we have the opportunity to drink from the jurisprudential trough of their insights.
But instead, we often engage in shallow knee-jerk political cheerleading.
We can do better. The decisions are actually quite easy to read. Yes, there is some legalistic lingo to navigate (supra, stare decisis, writ of certiorari), endless citations to previous decisions, and there are a variety of opinions being offered at the same time (the majority opinion, the dissent, concurring opinions, etc.). But on balance, the average literate American can easily comprehend the arguments being made in the decisions.
<h4>Justices Are Actually Good Writers </h4>
Most of the justices on the Supreme Court are exceptional writers. While few will ever capture the verve and vim of Antonin Scalia, whose opinions were laced with both high-minded legal reasoning and snappy one-liners (he once <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/justice-antonin-scalia-dead-supreme-court-opinion-lines-pure-applesauce">assailed</a> a majority opinion as “pure applesauce”), the justices aim for clarity because they aren’t simply writing to modern-day America.
They are writing to posterity and the likes of the Harvard Law Class of 2055. They know their arguments will be studied, critiqued, and either celebrated or condemned by future students and scholars long after they are gone. They would much rather be regarded as a John Marshall Harlan, whose sole dissenting voice in Plessy v. Ferguson was used to overturn the decision decades later in Brown, than a Roger Taney, who penned the worst decision in American history, Dred Scott.    
<h4>You Might Learn Something </h4>
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">decision</a> is a perfect illustration of why Americans should read Supreme Court opinions.
Many Americans dislike the Roe and Casey decisions because they dislike abortion. But it would be wise to understand why so many consider Roe a grievous constitutional mistake. It is also important to learn how the majority behaved akin to a quasi-legislature in its 1973 written opinion, and why even the likes of <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7108099e-f5a0-11ec-9394-f7680161c067.html">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> thought it was a poorly reasoned and executed decision. In the Dobbs decision, Justice Alito explains all of this with utter clarity.Moreover, a reader would learn about the evolution of the Court’s thinking on reproductive rights and how the 1992 Casey decision jettisoned earlier claims of privacy in favor of a broad argument about substantive due process and the “undue burden” test.
Most Americans do not know how close the Court came to overturning Roe thirty years ago in Casey, when <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/09/04/justice-kennedys-flip/17eb4e0b-72f6-4678-b5bb-7a3e8f79b395/">Justice Anthony Kennedy flipped his vote</a>, purportedly causing Scalia to drive to Kennedy’s house to argue with him about the matter. Alito lays out in the Dobbs decision why arguments grounded in substantive due process do not apply to abortion. In his concurrence, Clarence Thomas lays waste to the entire doctrine of “substantive due process” itself.
Finally,  people who are down on John Roberts these days might become more sympathetic to his judicial posture if they took the time to read his dissent. Judicial conservatism has more branches than simple originalism or textualism. It also includes an appreciation for social stability, a resistance to activism, a preference for judicial incrementalism, and an acknowledgement that even incorrectly-decided decisions should be upheld if they have been woven into the fabric of American civil society. Roberts would have preferred it if the Court had simply upheld the Mississippi law in question by rejecting “the viability rule” without courting the controversy overturning Roe would invite. As he writes, “The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.”
<h4>You Might Change Your Mind, Reinforce Your Convictions, Or Find Empathy  </h4>
As citizens, it is important to know our own convictions, but it’s also important to understand why we believe what we believe.
As a college student, I remember raging at the Supreme Court for declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional because, in those days of youthful self-righteousness, I was adamantly against earmarks and pork barrel legislation. And yet, when I read <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/417/">the Court’s decision</a> on the matter, I realized the justices were right and that the nature of Article II executive power did not comport with the extension of the president’s veto power.
Likewise, the Dobbs dissent is thoughtful, noting, ”As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare.” It is no small thing in a rights-based society to rescind a right, even if one believes it was incorrectly granted in the first place.
George Washington foresaw this constitutional conundrum before the United States was even a union, <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp">writing</a>, “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. … It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved.”     
Appreciating the perspectives of those with whom we disagree isn’t simply a pleasant gesture, it’s an essential quality of good citizenship. Let’s start to practice it.  
Jeremy S. Adams is the author of the recently-released Amazon best-selling book Hollowed Out: A Warning About America&#8217;s Next Generation. He has taught American civics for 24 years in Bakersfield, California and was the 2014 California Teacher of the Year (DAR). You can follow him on Twitter @JeremyAdams6.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v3 Adams – Read The Decision Before You Rage or Strut

Here’s An Idea: Read The Decision Before You Rage Or Strut

Anthony Kennedy

SCOTUS

Woodrow Wilson

Students regularly ask me for a summer reading list of my favorite books to help them continue their nascent reading habits. I’m always hard-pressed to come up with a list because, as I will explain, my favorite books are those that I have recently finished, am reading, or am about to start. However, I do manage to give them a few suggestions, trying to avoid anyone they might know and trying to provide a diverse list of genres—history, memoir, and poetry, for instance. The idea of reading poetry always raises a few eyebrows.
I know they won’t read all of the books, or even most of them, but summer is the quintessential time for reading. Notice how many publications publish lists of books to read, with brief synopses of each one, from The Wall Street Journal to the local newspaper.
I’ve always wanted to weigh in with my own list, avoiding the beach-read, chick-lit recommendation. I only have one reason for this avoidance: I don’t know anything about them, not that I think they are unworthy. What follows in my list, rather, is an eclectic collection of books from numerous genres — from economics to biography to fiction to memoir to poetry. In short, there is something for everyone—or so I intend. I’ve also tried to avoid writers whose books I felt were already familiar enough and didn’t need any more advertising. Some of these writers include: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Ben Franklin, and Neil Gorsuch. What I can tell you is that I have read several (if not all) of the books of each person I have included in the list below.
I also had another decision to make: to recommend a particular book or simply the writer. Unless I had a compelling reason to mention a specific book, I decided to let the writers stand on their own. All are so good that no one can go wrong choosing anything in their canon.
Finally, I made the decision to include writers who speak to our failing Republic or to current, contentious issues, but such writers are not in the majority. In other words, this isn’t a collection of books on current events, despite there being writers included who speak in large and important ways to the political, moral, and philosophical issues of our day. It is, as I said, an eclectic list of writers, in no particular order, who have challenged, entertained, or taken my breath away, over and over, through the years.
<h4>Introducing the Writers</h4>
<ol>
<li>Bradley Thompson, historian of our country’s founding. He writes with love and passion, especially in his most recent book, “America’s Revolutionary Mind.”</li>
<li>Thomas Sowell, economist and long-time member of the Hoover Institute. Sowell is known for his data-driven research, and “Intellectuals and Society” is no exception. Of note here is his work on gun control, which is the reason why I mention this specific title among his forty-some books.</li>
<li>Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dutch-American political activist, commentator, and colleague of Sowell at the Hoover Institute. She is originally from Somalia. Her first two books, memoirs, inspire young and old readers alike.</li>
<li>Victor Davis Hanson, another member of the Hoover Institute, who writes military and classical history and contemporary political commentary like no other.</li>
<li>Markus Zusak, a children’s book writer, best-known for “The Book Thief,” set during World War II.</li>
<li>Chaim Potok, late American Jewish novelist, Zionist, and painter.</li>
<li>Andrew Roberts, British historian, whose recent one-volume biography of Winston Churchill is the best in or out of print.</li>
<li>Dorothy L. Sayers, British mystery writer and inventor of the iconic sleuth Lord Peter Whimsey. Several contemporary mystery writers, such as P. D. James and Elizabeth George, owe her a debt of gratitude for elevating mystery to literary fiction.</li>
<li>A.S. Byatt, British winner of the Booker prize for “Possession.” She is also an accomplished short-story writer; her sister is the novelist Margaret Drabble.</li>
<li>Charles Williams, a member of the Oxford literary group known as the Inklings during World War II, an editor with the Oxford University Press, and a writer of spiritual thrillers.</li>
<li>Flannery O’Connor, Catholic, Southern gothic short-story writer.</li>
<li>Reynolds Price, fellow Southern novelist, poet, essayist, and previous member of the Duke University English department.</li>
<li>Andre Dubus, the late American short-story writer.</li>
<li>Wendell Berry, Kentucky farmer, who writes about contemporary agricultural issues and is also a novelist, essayist, and poet. His Sabbath Poems deserve to be read aloud to another person, as I did on a hiking trip to the Chianti Valley, Tuscany before my husband’s death. </li>
<li>Billy Collins, American poet; I think of him as bread and butter.</li>
<li>Wislawa Szymborska, was a Polish Nobel Laureate poet. Even in translation, her grammatical and intellectual power comes striking through.</li>
<li>Annie Proulx, American novelist and short-story writer. I am particularly fond of the hard-scrabble collection, “Wyoming Stories.”</li>
<li>Alexandre Dumas, nineteenth-century novelist. When students ask me for my favorite book, I have an answer: “The Count of Monte Cristo.”</li>
<li>Naomi Wolfe, journalist and political commentator, who has become something of an expert in Covid matters.</li>
<li>Antonin Scalia, the late conservative Supreme Court Justice, whose legal opinions, besides being brilliant, are hilarious. If only we had more like him.</li>
</ol>
Choose one, two, or more and dive in this summer. Choose a genre you have never read and read it aloud to a friend or loved one. Share these writers. Reading can never be just a solitary occupation, an isolated pleasure. What you read changes you and will spill out of you, willy-nilly. There is no other activity like it. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson who credits reading as the root of his success. Let it be yours.
Cheryl Forbes is Professor of Writing and Rhetoric at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY. She is the author of eight books on theology, philosophy, science, and memoir.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Forbes – Summertime And The Reading Is Easy

Summertime And The Reading Is Easy: 20 Writers Worth Diving Into

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Victor Davis Hanson

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tried to explain the concept of &#8220;originalism&#8221; to judge Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday but ended up failing miserably and being crushed online.
In her hearings on Tuesday, Barrett, who will likely replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, mentioned that, like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, she has an &#8220;originalist&#8221; view of the Constitution, which, in essence, requires her to consider the document authors&#8217; intent and the Constitution&#8217;s immediate historical context when interpreting the Constitution&#8217;s guarantees in light of a particular case.
For most jurists, that means limiting the protections of government to those clearly listed in the Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights, and in subsequent amendments, but each originalist has his or her own definition.
&#8220;In English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law,&#8221; Barrett patiently explained to the Senate Tuesday, &#8220;and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn&#8217;t change over time and it&#8217;s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.&#8221;
For leftists, including Clinton, &#8220;originalism&#8221; was not a theory of judicial interpretation, but a chance to dunk on Barrett, and like many of her Democratic colleagues, Clinton misinterpreted Barrett&#8217;s ties to &#8220;originalism&#8221; as a demand that the Constitution remains as written, with no protection for women and minorities.
&#8220;At the time the Constitution was ratified, women couldn&#8217;t vote, much less be judges,&#8221; Clinton sniped.
She was quickly corrected. It turns out, originalists believe that the Constitution&#8217;s protections can be extended or changed through the amendment process because that leaves those decisions up to the people, not the judiciary.
No less than Justice Antonin Scalia&#8217;s son weighed in on the issue.
&#8220;Dear HRC staffers: originalists don’t believe the Constitution should never change; they just realize it’s the job not of judges but of citizens through their legislators to make those changes. See, for example, the 19th amendment,&#8221; Christopher Scalia tweeted, including a link to his father&#8217;s extensive writings on the subject.
Others questioned whether Clinton had been truly served during her time in law school and legal practice.
&#8220;OMgosh and she&#8217;s a lawyer. I know she isn&#8217;t this stupid, but how many in America are!&#8221; noted a professor on social media.
The &#8220;originalism means Barrett couldn&#8217;t vote&#8221; line is a popular one among leftists. &#8220;West Wing&#8221; actor Bradley Whitford, under the apparent impression that he served in a branch of government tried his own hand at badly explaining &#8220;originalism&#8221; to his followers.
&#8220;Unless you&#8217;re a fan of slavery, think women should have no rights at all, and that indigenous people are a different species that deserves to be eradicated, &#8216;originalism&#8217; is an Orwellian doily wrapped around a morally bankrupt turd,&#8221; he said. He later added that he liked asking conservative women who ascribe to originalism whether they should be allowed to vote. Conservative women, of course, referred Whitford to the Nineteenth Amendment which originalists believe was duly enacted, expanding the Constitution&#8217;s guarantees of freedom at the behest of American voters.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Tries To Explain ‘Originalism’ To Amy Coney Barrett, Fails Miserably

Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett will praise her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and honor the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a brief series of remarks to open her Senate confirmation hearings Monday morning.
The <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barrett-to-praise-scalia-in-opening-hearing-statement-say-court-should-not-make-policy">four-page statement, issued to most major media outlets</a> on Sunday, has Barrett focusing intently on her judicial qualifications and her theory of interpreting the law, rather than her background, family, or religion &#8212; something left-leaning and progressive activists have focused intently on over the past several weeks.
Instead, Barrett will address Democrats&#8217; concerns that she will issue proclamations from the bench and &#8220;make law&#8221; with judicial rulings.
&#8220;Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People.&#8221;
As in her statement at her nomination ceremony, Barrett notes, enthusiastically, her connections with Scalia. She served as one of his law clerks before going on to become first a law professor and then a judge herself. In her nomination ceremony, she noted that Scalia&#8217;s theory on the interpretation of the law was her own. In her new statement, she adds that she&#8217;s modeled her own private life on Scalia&#8217;s as well.
&#8220;Justice Scalia taught me more than just law,&#8221; her statement reads. &#8220;He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life.&#8221;
Although many have been adamant about drawing a line separating Ginsburg and Barrett, Barrett does mention Ginsburg in her statement, as well, noting that Ginsburg paved the way for additional female justices on the Supreme Court.
&#8220;When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat,&#8221; Barrett notes. &#8220;She told the Committee, &#8216;What has become of me could only happen in America.&#8217; I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/barrett-ginsburg-supreme-court-428622">POLITICO called</a> the statement &#8220;expertly bland&#8221; in their story, suggesting that they believed Barrett may have staked out her position on specific issues &#8212; something any individual nominated for the Supreme Court is unlikely to do, lest they eventually be forced to recuse themselves from a case.
The DC-based outlet does note that Democrats are preparing to scale back their attacks on Barrett, limiting their public criticism to her previous commentary on the Affordable Care Act &#8212; she said merely that she disagreed with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts&#8217; decision to classify the law&#8217;s individual insurance mandate as a &#8220;tax&#8221; &#8212; and not on Barrett&#8217;s personal beliefs, religious affiliations, or family life.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-COURT-TRUMP-BARRETT

Preview: Amy Coney Barrett To Honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Praise Antonin Scalia In Confirmation Hearing Opening Statement

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg&#8217;s surgery for lung cancer on Friday, President Trump showed nothing but grace, wishing her a &#8220;speedy recovery.&#8221;
&#8220;Wishing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery!&#8221; the president tweeted on Friday night.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Wishing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1076270321861312512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
A little over a month after fracturing three ribs in a nasty fall, Ginsburg underwent surgery for lung cancer on Friday. A statement released by the Supreme Court Friday announced that Justice Ginsburg underwent a &#8220;pulmonary lobectomy&#8221; in New York City that resulted in the removal of two malignant nodules. No other complications with Ginsburg have been detected.
&#8220;Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy today at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City,&#8221; read the statement. &#8220;Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University Hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7. Both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease.&#8221;
President Trump showed equal grace to the justice last month following her fall. When she appeared at a White House ceremony honoring the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justice-health-fine-fall-liberal-a8685681.html">president said</a>, &#8220;Glad to see you are feeling great.&#8221;
While Justice Ginsburg has at times shown herself to be political regarding Trump, when it comes to her colleagues, she has shown the same grace that President Trump and several prominent conservatives who vehemently disagree with her have shown during her past two health scares. Upon the passing of her former colleague Justice Scalia, Ginsburg, who developed a friendship with him during his tenure on the bench, spoke fondly of him while leftists trashed his legacy.
&#8220;From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies,&#8221; said <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/14/statements-supreme-court-death-justice-scalia/80375976/">Ginsburg at the time</a>. &#8220;We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots&#8212;the &#8216;applesauce&#8217; and &#8216;argle bargle&#8217;&#8212;and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.&#8221;
At 85, Ginsburg has made no plans to retire from her Supreme Court seat, which, if filled by a conservative, would dramatically alter the court&#8217;s makeup for decades to come. In the early Obama years, progressive activists were hoping she would announce her retirement so the former president could replace her with an equally progressive judge. After the 2014 midterm, when Republicans took back the Senate, her retirement became all the less likely. Now that President Trump sits in the oval office and Republicans control the Senate, Ginsburg will likely stay on at least through 2020.
&#8220;I said I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam,&#8221; Ginsburg said Sunday during an interview following a New York City screening of &#8220;On the Basis of Sex.&#8221;

Trump Wishes Ruth Bader Ginsburg A ‘Speedy Recovery’ Following Lung Cancer Surgery

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump will give the Presidential Medal of Freedom to seven individuals next week, including the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-names-recipients-presidential-medal-freedom/">announced the names</a> of those receiving the award on Saturday, and will present the awards on Friday, November 16.
In addition to Scalia, Trump will also present the award to Miriam Adelson, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Alan C. Page, Elvis Presley, Babe Ruth and Roger Staubach.
The Medal of Freedom is the nation&#8217;s highest civilian honor and given to those &#8220;who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security of national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors,&#8221; the White House said in a press release.
Miriam Adelson is a doctor, philanthropist, and humanitarian, and has founded two research centers dedicated to combatting drug addiction.
&#8220;With her husband, Sheldon, she also established the Adelson Medical Research Foundation, which supports research to prevent, reduce, or eliminate disabling and life-threatening illness,&#8221; the White House said. &#8220;As a committed member of the American Jewish community, she has supported Jewish schools, Holocaust memorial organizations, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, and Birthright Israel, among other causes.&#8221;
Hatch announced his retirement from the senate in January 2018 after serving Utah for 41 years, one of the longest-serving members in American history. He will be replaced in the senate by former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Alan C. Page is a former football player and lawyer. He played in the NFL for 15 years with the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears, and started in four Super Bowls. He practiced law in the off-season and eventually became a member of the Minnesota Supreme Court. His Page Education Foundation has provided scholarships to 7,000 students.
Elvis Presley was an American Icon, actor, and musician, defining a generation of rock and roll.
George Herman &#8220;Babe&#8221; Ruth, Jr. is a baseball legend. &#8220;He set records that stood for decades, including 714 home runs, 2,873 hits, 2,174 runs, and 2,062 walks&#8212;and he remains unmatched with a .690 slugging percentage,&#8221; the White House wrote.
Scalia was perhaps the Supreme Court&#8217;s best conservative writer, and authored almost 900 opinions for the nation&#8217;s highest court. His son, Christopher, tweeted about his father receiving the Medal of Freedom, saying, &#8220;Very proud that my father will receive the Medal of Freedom. That he&#8217;s getting it with Elvis is icing on the cake.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Very proud that my father will receive the Medal of Freedom. That he&#8217;s getting it with Elvis is icing on the cake. <a href="https://t.co/BBkjfUEGRx">https://t.co/BBkjfUEGRx</a>
&#8212; Christopher J. Scalia (@cjscalia) <a href="https://twitter.com/cjscalia/status/1061290323081605121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Roger Staubach is a Hall-of-Fame quarterback who played for the NFL for 11 seasons and won two Super Bowls with the Dallas Cowboys. He was also a philanthropist, focusing on helping children and veterans.
These are the first recipients of the Medal of Freedom under Trump.

Trump To Give Justice Antonin Scalia, Elvis Presley Medal of Freedom

Cory Booker, hero? Sen. Booker likened himself to Spartacus after declaring he would leak classified information to the press during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, but is that really heroic? Andrew Klavan certainly doesn&#8217;t think so, as he explained on Thursday&#8217;s episode of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.
&#8220;Whether Trump is an obtuse, chaotic doofus or not, the system right now is delivering more of that American way of life people fought and died for in 1776. I don&#8217;t care what an anonymous unelected New York Times guy says, and I don&#8217;t care what Cory Booker says, and I hope he is thrown out of the Senate just for my own personal amusement,&#8221; Klavan said. &#8220;That is what we&#8217;re fighting for, and we shouldn&#8217;t be distracted by all the craziness on either side.&#8221; 
Video and transcript below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RGPrTFcCXSg?start=1201" width="560"></iframe></div>
<blockquote>
Let&#8217;s just go over to the Kavanaugh hearing where Cory Booker, who is obviously running for president &#8211; an office he will never hold, not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime, he will never be President of the United States &#8211; but he is doing everything he can. They&#8217;re questioning Kavanaugh on Roe v. Wade, he says yes, it&#8217;s a precedent, it&#8217;s a very strong precedent, but precedents can be overturned. They questioned him on guns, he has the answer on guns, he&#8217;s just not giving them anything to tear him apart on.
So, thank heavens unelected anonymous New York Times guy is not running our government, Cory Booker is gonna take matters into his own hands, and protect the rule of decency in law by violating the rules of the Senate and the rules of decency, and releasing classified papers from the Bush administration. Here he is telling you what a hero he is:
Cory Booker: &#8220;I knowingly violated the rules that were put forth, and I&#8217;m told that the committee confidential rules have knowing consequences, and so sir I come from a long line, as all of us do as Americans, and understand what that kind of civil disobedience is and I understand the consequences. So, I am right now before your process is finished, I&#8217;m going to release the email about racial profiling, and I understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate, and if Senator Cornyn believes that I violated Senate rules, I openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that email right now. I&#8217;m releasing it to expose, at number one, the emails that are being withheld from the public have nothing to do with national security, nothing to jeopardize the sanctity of those ideals that I hold dear. Instead what I&#8217;m releasing this document right now to show, sir, is that we have a process here for a person, the highest office in the land, for a lifetime appointment &#8211; we&#8217;re rushing through this before me and my colleagues can even read and digest the information.&#8221;
Everything in that statement is untrue, it&#8217;s not the highest office in the land, they&#8217;re not rushing through it, they&#8217;ve got all the papers they need they&#8217;ve had them for a long time, the papers that they are looking for are mostly classified, they&#8217;re just trying to delay things hoping that the midterms will turn everything around. Not gonna happen. Mitch McConnell is very much in control of this process, and unless something explodes, this guy&#8217;s gonna be confirmed to the Supreme Court, and then they will have wasted their panic, because I think Trump is going to continue to be president, and one of the older Supreme Court justices is gonna kick and then they&#8217;re really gonna have reason to panic.
I just want to read something that every American should read. Every American should read Antonin Scalia&#8217;s dissent in Obergefell, the decision of the Supreme Court that decreed gay marriage a right, and you know where I stand on this, you know that I&#8217;m perfectly happy for there to be gay marriage, I don&#8217;t care about that at all. But here is something I do care about &#8211; I want to read this because this is the vision that we&#8217;re trying to defend, it is not about Roe v. Wade, it is not about Obergefell, it is about who runs America and what America is supposed to be like. I&#8217;m just gonna read the first two paragraphs very quickly, this is Scalia dissenting on the gay rights decision:
Antonin Scalia: &#8220;The substance of today&#8217;s decree is not of immense personal importance to me, the law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences in the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences, can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. 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&#8217;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. The opinion in these cases is the farthest extension in fact, and the furthest extension one can even imagine, of the courts claimed power to create liberties that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.&#8221; 
&#8220;This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied by extravagant praise of Liberty, robs the people of the most important Liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the revolution of 1776, the freedom to govern themselves. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately but respectfully attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans consider the arguments, and put the question to a vote. The electorates of eleven states, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage, many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.&#8221;
It is that system of government we are trying to defend, it is that system of government Cory Booker and unelected New York Times guy are fighting against. Whether Trump is an obtuse, chaotic doofus or not, the system right now is delivering more of that American way of life people fought and died for in 1776. I don&#8217;t care what an anonymous unelected New York Times guy says, and I don&#8217;t care what Cory Booker says, and I hope he is thrown out of the Senate just for my own personal amusement. That is what we&#8217;re fighting for, and we shouldn&#8217;t be distracted by all the craziness on either side. 
</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch more of The Andrew Klavan Show here</a>.
<a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Listen to more of The Andrew Klavan Show on iTunes here.</a>

Klavan: Cory Booker Is No Hero

Brett Kavanaugh

Cory Booker

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hopes to stay on the Supreme Court until the age of 90, giving her five more years. 
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-scalia-new-york/index.html">According to CNN</a>, Ginsberg made the remark after seeing &#8220;The Originalist,&#8221; a play about the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in New York.
&#8220;I&#8217;m not 85,&#8221; she said. &#8220;My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so I think I have about at least five more years.&#8221;
Despite the wishes of many Republicans to replace her with a conservative justice, Ginsburg has shown no signs of wishing to retire and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/25572/justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg-isnt-retiring-supreme-emily-zanotti">already hired law clerks</a> for the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2019-2020 season.
Ginsburg also gave her thoughts on term limits: &#8220;You can&#8217;t set term limits, because to do that you&#8217;d have to amend the Constitution,&#8221; adding, &#8220;Article 3 says &#8230; we hold our offices during good behavior.&#8221;
&#8220;And most judges are very well behaved,&#8221; she joked.
Ginsburg also spoke highly of Scalia in her remarks saying, &#8220;If I had my choice of dissenters when I was writing for the court, it would be Justice Scalia.&#8221; Despite their significant ideological differences, the two were good friends and she claims their debates would help form her arguments. 
&#8220;Sometimes it was like a ping-pong game.&#8221;

Justice Ginsburg Says She Will Stay On SCOTUS Until 90

President Donald Trump will host a White House summit on Thursday with members of the video game community, video game manufacturers, and video game critics, in an apparent effort to address the &#8220;violence&#8221; the president believes video games have fostered in society.
Trump told media last week that he believes there&#8217;s a connection between first person shooter and other violent video games and mass shootings, like the one that happened in Parkland, Florida, in February. This week, the White House followed up on that, convening a group they believe will fully inform the president on the issue.
<a href="https://twitter.com/patmarkey/status/971747094259273728">The group reportedly includes</a> Republican Members of Congress &#8212; Reps. Vicky Hartzler and Martha Roby (Sen. Marco Rubio says he was asked but had a scheduling conflict) &#8212; representatives from Rockstar Games, the Entertainment Software Association, ZeniMax and Take Two Interactive, but also representatives from the Parents Television Council, a group heavily critical of most mass media, including video games. No behavioral scientists, it seems, were asked to participate.
The suspicion that violent video games somehow breed violent rampages <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/08/media/video-game-industry-white-house/index.html">is nothing new</a>. After the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, Rep. Hartzler and some social conservative groups allied with then-President Barack Obama to call for further investigation into precisely this postulated cause-and-effect. Before that, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and even failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton led similar crusades.
This time around, Trump joins &#8220;gun safety&#8221; activists <a href="https://momsdemandaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Game-Over-Video-Game-Industry-Urged-to-Stop-Promoting-Guns-and-Gun-Manufacturers-.pdf">like Moms Demand Action</a> in tying shootings to video games.
Two decades of research, however, seem to indicate that, while there may be some correlation between video games and aggression, there is no link connecting video games and mass shootings.
A 2006 study showed a link between violent video games and emotional arousal, <a href="https://apnews.com/1bebc3d683b3430f940d58c20828fbb1/Trump-reopens-a-seemingly-settled-video-game-debate">the Associated Press reports</a>, and a <a href="http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/violent-video-games.aspx">task force commissioned by the American Psychological Association</a>, which produced perhaps the most in-depth study so far, found similar results &#8212; that playing some video games led to &#8220;increased aggression&#8221; &#8212; but even the APA was forced to admit that there&#8217;s no link between that aggression and any criminal behavior, including mass shootings.
&#8220;All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence,&#8221; the APA report said. &#8220;This distinction is important for understanding this research literature, for considering the implications of the research, and for interpreting popular press accounts of the research and its applicability to societal events.&#8221;
These same video games also do not make kids more likely to develop a fondness for &#8212; or purchase &#8212; real life weapons. And back in 2013, similar experts even noted that <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/15/do-video-games-cause-mass-shootings-experts-weigh-in/">video games don&#8217;t actually make society more violent</a>; as video game play has increased, youth violence has decreased, even though mass shootings have become more common.
This is largely to say that efforts to regulate the video game industry aren&#8217;t likely to stop the next mass shooting &#8212; or any more likely to stop the next mass shooting than increased regulations on the gun industry itself. In fact, the comparison is apt because restrictions on both are subject to Constitutional issues; none other than Justice Antonin Scalia declared that video games themselves are a form of speech and protected by the First Amendment.
So while it might be a fun meeting &#8212; heck, they might even give President Trump access to the next &#8220;Grand Theft Auto&#8221; &#8212; blaming video games for violence simply won&#8217;t work.

President Trump Wants To Blame Violence On Video Games. Here’s Why That Won’t Work.

Free Speech

Gun Control

Shooting

One of the key arguments that ended up winning over a lot of Trump-skeptic conservatives in November was the desperate need to reverse the liberal activist direction of the federal courts, which, as<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html"> the &#8220;nutty 9th Circuit &#8220;</a> repeatedly demonstrates, is increasingly resulting in the violation of the separation of powers. But would Donald Trump, who spent most of his life <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations">donating a lot more to Democrats than Republicans</a>, actually follow through on his promises to nominate conservative judges? So far the answer is a resounding yes.
Trump&#8217;s most celebrated decision so far among staunch conservatives is his selection of Neil Gorsuch to replace the deceased Antonin Scalia, who was a steadfast conservative voice on the Supreme Court. But Trump has quietly done much more than that to reverse the direction of the courts. He has now appointed over 20 strong, conservative candidates for lower court positions. As <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/while-you-were-focused-on-comey-trump-nominated-another-group-of-conservative-judges/">Legal </a><a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/while-you-were-focused-on-comey-trump-nominated-another-group-of-conservative-judges/">Insurrection</a>&#8216;s William Jacobson pointed out Wednesday, while the media frenzy over the highly anticipated James Comey testimony was approaching its crescendo, Trump announced a second slate of conservative federal judicial appointments that has inspired cheers from conservative legal minds and &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/trump-judicial-nominations.html?_r=1">dismay</a>&#8221; from progressives. 
As Jacobson <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/trump-begins-counter-packing-federal-courts-dems-cant-stop-him-thanks-to-reid-rule/">put it</a> earlier in the month, &#8220;Trump has an unprecedented opportunity to nominate a substantial percentage of the federal judiciary,&#8221; currently around 100 vacancies. In early May, Trump nominated a group of <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/08/trump-names-10-conservatives-federal-courts/101431848/">10 solidly conservative judges</a>, celebrated by the Right and decried by the Left. On Wednesday, he named another 11.
&#8220;These nominations follow the successful nomination and confirmation of associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court, the successful nomination and confirmation of Judge Amul R. Thapar of Kentucky to serve as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the nomination of numerous candidates to other judgeships,&#8221; the White House said in a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/07/president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-candidate-nominations">statement</a> Wednesday (full statement below).
Like the first group, the 11 appointees have conservatives, like law professor <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/07/president-trump-continues-to-make-sterling-judicial-nominations/?utm_term=.dcc66a967306">Jonathan Adler</a>, thrilled. &#8220;Today, the Trump administration announced another slate of incredibly strong judicial nominees, including three nominees for federal appellate court,&#8221; wrote Adler, who went on to note that many of the names (five of the nine circuit court nominees) are &#8220;current or former law professors,&#8221; like him. Adler drew a comparison to the Reagan administration, which likewise believed that &#8220;appointing academics is one way to maximize its influence on the federal judiciary.&#8221; One of those Reagan nominees was <a href="https://www.biography.com/people/antonin-scalia-9473091">Antonin Scalia</a>. 
Below is the full <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/07/president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-candidate-nominations">statement</a> released by the White House on Wednesday:
<blockquote>
President Donald J. Trump today announced his fourth wave of Federal judicial nominees. These nominations follow the successful confirmation of Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court, the successful confirmation of Judge Amul R. Thapar of Kentucky to serve as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the nomination of numerous candidates to other judgeships. 
The President today announced his nomination of these individuals to the following Federal judgeships.
If confirmed, Allison H. Eid of Colorado will serve as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Justice Allison Eid currently serves as the 95th Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Justice Eid was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2006 and retained by the people of Colorado in 2008. Before assuming office, Justice Eid served as Colorado&#8217;s Solicitor General and as a tenured Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado School of Law, where she authored several articles on federalism and taught courses on constitutional law, legislation, and torts. Before joining the University of Colorado faculty, Justice Eid practiced commercial and appellate litigation with the Denver office of Arnold &amp; Porter. Justice Eid has served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Federal Appellate Rules, and she is currently a member of the American Law Institute. Earlier in her career, Justice Eid clerked for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court and for Judge Jerry E. Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Justice Eid received her A.B. with distinction from Stanford University, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and her J.D. with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and served as Articles Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review.
If confirmed, Ralph R. Erickson of North Dakota will serve as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Judge Ralph Erickson currently serves on the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. He has served on the District Court of North Dakota since 2003. Judge Erickson served as the Chief Judge of the District of North Dakota from 2009-2016. Prior to his appointment to the Federal bench, Judge Erickson was a judge on the North Dakota state district court for eight years. He currently serves as the chair of the United States Sentencing Commission&#8217;s Tribal Issues Advisory Group. Judge Erickson graduated from Jamestown College, magna cum laude, with a B.A. in History, and received his J.D. from the University of North Dakota, where he served on the North Dakota Law Review.
If confirmed, Michael P. Allen of Florida will serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Michael P. Allen serves as a Professor of Law and Director of the Veterans Law Institute at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida, where he teaches courses in civil and constitutional law, as well as veterans&#8217; benefits law. Professor Allen is a recognized expert on the law of veterans&#8217; benefits and has testified before Congress and published widely in the field. Before joining the Stetson law faculty sixteen years ago, Professor Allen spent nine years as a civil trial attorney at the law firm Ropes &amp; Gray in Boston, Massachusetts. Professor Allen received his B.A. in American history and political science, summa cum laude, from the University of Rochester, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and his J.D. from the Columbia University School of Law, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.
If confirmed, Dabney L. Friedrich of Washington, D.C., will serve as a District Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Dabney Friedrich has a lengthy career of distinguished public service. Most recently, Ms. Friedrich served as a Commissioner on the United States Sentencing Commission. Before that, Ms. Friedrich served as an associate counsel to the President during the George W. Bush Administration, as Chief Crime Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, as a trial attorney at the Department of Justice, and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of California. Before holding those positions, Ms. Friedrich clerked for Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the District of Columbia District Court. Ms. Friedrich received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Trinity University, her Diploma in Legal Studies from Oxford University, and her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she served as a senior editor on the Yale Journal on Regulation.
If confirmed, Timothy J. Kelly of Washington, D.C., will serve as a District Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Timothy Kelly is currently chief counsel for national security and senior crime counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. He also serves as the Republican staff director for the Senate&#8217;s Caucus on International Narcotics Control. Earlier in his career, Mr. Kelly spent a decade as a Federal prosecutor, serving first as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and then as a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice&#8217;s Criminal Division. Mr. Kelly also spent several years as a civil litigator at Arnold &amp; Porter. Mr. Kelly clerked for Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He received his A.B., cum laude, from Duke University, and his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he was a senior associate editor of the American Criminal Law Review.
If confirmed, Trevor N. McFadden of Virginia, will serve as a District Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Trevor McFadden currently serves as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Before assuming that role, Mr. McFadden was a partner in the Compliance, Investigations &amp; Government Enforcement Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Baker &amp; McKenzie LLP. Earlier in his career, Mr. McFadden served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and as counsel to the United States Deputy Attorney General. Mr. McFadden also has extensive experience as a law enforcement officer, having served as both a Deputy Sheriff in the Madison County Sheriff&#8217;s Office and as a police officer with the Fairfax County Police Department. Mr. McFadden clerked for Judge Steven M. Colloton on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Wheaton College, and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served on the editorial board of the Virginia Law Review.
If confirmed, Amanda L. Meredith of Virginia will serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Amanda L. Meredith serves as the deputy staff director and general counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans&#8217; Affairs, chaired by Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia. She previously served as general counsel to the Senate Committee on Veterans&#8217; Affairs and as benefits counsel to Ranking Member Richard Burr of North Carolina and Ranking Member Larry Craig of Idaho. Prior to her service on the Committee, Ms. Meredith served as director of the Task Force for Backlog Reduction for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and as a law clerk and executive attorney to Chief Judge Kenneth Kramer, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ms. Meredith received her B.S. from the State University of New York at Buffalo, summa cum laude, and her J.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo, magna cum laude, where she was a member of the Buffalo Law Review.
If confirmed, Stephen S. Schwartz of Virginia will serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Federal Claims. Stephen S. Schwartz is currently a partner at Schaerr Duncan LLP in Washington, D.C, where he litigates civil, constitutional, and administrative law matters in Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Prior to joining Schaerr Duncan, Mr. Schwartz served as counsel at Cause of Action, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C. Before joining Cause of Action, he was an associate in the litigation practice of Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP in Washington, D.C. Mr. Schwartz joined Kirkland after serving as a law clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Schwartz received his B.A., with distinction, from Yale and his J.D., with honors, from the University of Chicago Law School, where he was an editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. 
If confirmed, Joseph L. Toth of Wisconsin will serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Joseph L. Toth is a veteran of the Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Navy. In 2011, he served as a field officer in the Rule of Law Field Force Afghanistan (ROLFF-A), where he was stationed with the U.S. Army&#8217;s 10th Mountain Division in the Zhari District of Afghanistan. In Zhari, Mr. Toth partnered with Afghan prosecutors to establish the rule of law in the district where the Taliban was formed, and he was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal for his service. He also served as Senior Defense Counsel in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where he defended Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guard personnel at courts-martial. Following his military service, Mr. Toth clerked for Judge Daniel A. Manion on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Judge Robert J. Conrad of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Most recently, he served as an associate Federal public defender in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Toth received his B.A. from the University of Chicago and his J.D. from the Ave Maria School of Law.
President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Judicial Candidates
The President today also announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to the following Federal judgeships.
If confirmed, Stephanos Bibas of Pennsylvania will serve as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Professor Bibas serves as Professor of Law and Criminology and as Director of the Supreme Court Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. One of the Nation&#8217;s leading experts in criminal law and procedure, Professor Bibas has published two books and more than sixty scholarly articles, and he has argued six cases before the United States Supreme Court. Before joining the law faculty at Penn, Professor Bibas taught at the University of Chicago Law School and the University of Iowa College of Law, after completing a research fellowship at Yale Law School. From 1998 to 2000, he served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than one hundred cases. Before that, Professor Bibas litigated at the law firm of Covington &amp; Burling in Washington, D.C. and served as a law clerk to Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court and to Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Professor Bibas received his B.A. from Columbia University, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, his B.A. and M.A. from Oxford University, and his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was on the editorial board of the Yale Law Journal. While at Oxford, he won the First Place Speaker award at the World Universities Debating Championship.
If confirmed, Claria Horn Boom of Kentucky will serve as a district judge on the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. Claria Horn Boom is currently a partner in the Lexington office of Frost Brown Todd LLC. Before joining Frost Brown Todd LLC, Ms. Horn Boom served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky, and before that, practiced at King &amp; Spalding in Atlanta, Georgia. Before holding these positions, Ms. Horn Boom clerked for Judge Pierce Lively of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ms. Horn Boom grew up in the Martin County, Kentucky courthouse , where her mother served as clerk of the court. Ms. Horn Boom earned her undergraduate degree from Transylvania University and her J.D. from the Vanderbilt University Law School.
</blockquote>
H/T <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/while-you-were-focused-on-comey-trump-nominated-another-group-of-conservative-judges/">William Jacobson</a>.

PROMISE KEPT: Trump Nominates Eleven More Conservative Judges

Conservatism

Neil Gorsuch

Ronald Reagan

Trump Administration

James Comey is finally out as FBI Director. Comey never should have gone public last summer about the DOJ probe of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s email fiasco and, after having done so, grievously erred in fabricating an utterly fictitious mens rea requirement for the underlying criminal statute at issue. Comey has repeatedly beclowned himself in the court of public opinion since then, and the firing of the perhaps most universally disliked man in Washington is, if anything, months overdue.
I have very little to add to Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro&#8217;s <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16254/there-are-only-two-theories-why-trump-fired-comey-ben-shapiro">two</a>&#8211;<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16274/here-are-5-pieces-evidence-trump-didnt-fire-comey-ben-shapiro">part</a> analysis of why Trump finally fired Comey at this particular juncture. I think Ben&#8217;s proffered <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16274/here-are-5-pieces-evidence-trump-didnt-fire-comey-ben-shapiro">third theory</a> &#8212; that &#8220;Trump fired Comey because he was angry Comey was allowing the Russia investigation to drag along, and used Comey&#8217;s ridiculous Congressional testimony as a pretext for firing him&#8221; &#8212; is, indeed, the most logical and the most well-supported by the available circumstantial evidence. Robert Costa, in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html">detailed report</a> at The Washington Post, entirely corroborates this line of thought:
<blockquote>
Trump had long questioned Comey&#8217;s loyalty and judgment, and was infuriated by what he viewed as the director&#8217;s lack of action in recent weeks on leaks from within the federal government. By last weekend, he had made up his mind: Comey had to go&#8230;
Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia&#8217;s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.
</blockquote>
Notwithstanding Comey&#8217;s invariably being hated by everyone across all conceivable political stripes, the breathtakingly incompetent Trump White House managed to <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16270/jeez-trump-white-house-reaches-new-levels-ben-shapiro">botch</a> its poorly timed dismissal more epically than the Atlanta Falcons botched Super Bowl LI. The Trump/Russia <a href="http://twitter.com/louisemensch">conspiracy enthusiasts</a> have responded to this sad(!) display of sophomoric bush league-ism by, much like the octogenarians at the senior facility taking Viagra for the first time, rising up to dramatically reassert their prowess. While this is not necessarily a development for the worse, there are reasons to be immensely skeptical of the particular direction in which the post-Comey investigation appears to be headed.
To be clear, Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election absolutely deserves a full-scale investigation. It is true that any &#8220;fire&#8221; resulting from all the cough-inducing Trump/Russia &#8220;smoke&#8221; would probably already have been uncovered, but there is still an unholy amount of &#8220;smoke&#8221; and there is simply no reason at all for Republicans to obstruct such a thorough investigation absent brute partisanship. And if the GOP were to acquiesce in such an intensive probe that nonetheless ultimately exculpated Trump in squeaky clean fashion, the party might do itself a modicum of polling favor as it tries to recover from a self-flagellating budget <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15713/pathetic-republicans-set-full-capitulation-april-josh-hammer">capitulation</a> and a healthcare disappointment by swimming upstream against a <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16294/uh-oh-quinnipiac-poll-shows-americans-want-elliott-hamilton">painful political current</a>.
The problem thus comes in the specific form this post-Comey investigation into Russia may take. Long-time political watchdogs may recall that the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel, originally enacted as part of the post-Watergate scandal Ethics in Government Act of 1978, expired without congressional reauthorization in June 1999. The Independent Counsel position that the Act created was unique insofar as the Counsel operated outside the hierarchical aegis of the U.S. Department of Justice &#8212; and thus, by extension, of the President of the United States. The Independent Counsel could not be removed by the President, and could only be removed by the Attorney General for &#8220;good cause&#8221; or by a special panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Independent Counsel has not existed since its aforementioned official expiration in 1999. 
That is, perhaps, until now. Noted Vietnam War <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265462/remembering-rich-blumenthals-vietnam-deception-lloyd-billingsley">liar</a> and <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382914/gosnell-nation-editors">baby-killer extraordinaire</a> Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) seems intent on <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senate-democrat-finalizing-independent-counsel-plan-comeys-termination">reviving</a> an effectively analogous position to the Independent Counsel prosecutor position that expired eighteen years ago:
<blockquote>
[Blumenthal] said he had been working on writing a bill that would look similar to the old lapsed statute for such outside prosecutors, but the effort will now accelerate&#8230;
The measure would resemble a prior law that allowed Congress to recommend independent prosecutors. That law lapsed in 1999 amid partisan discord over Ken Starr&#8217;s investigation into the actions of President Bill Clinton.
&#8220;It would not be identical to it, but the conceptual framework would be very much like the statute that existed that expired,&#8221; Blumenthal said.
</blockquote>
To be sure, Blumenthal is hardly the only one seeming to call for the revival of a special prosecutor who most resembles the &#8220;independent&#8221; prosecutor of scandals past. No less a Republican than Joe Scarborough himself even tweeted out support for such a measure:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Senate Republicans should not confirm any Trump pick for FBI Director until an independent prosecutor is appointed on Russia.
&#8212; Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/862125974565081088">May 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
There is only one real problem with the Independent Counsel of the old law, and with the broader notion of a truly &#8220;independent&#8221; special prosecutor, more generally: it is wildly unconstitutional. And it was shown to be unconstitutional, furthermore, by a magisterial lone dissent which the late Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court considered to be the <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/scalias-finest-opinion/article/2001510">best opinion</a> he ever wrote: that in Morrison v. Olson (1988). 
The basic problem with the Independent Counsel, as Scalia explained, was that the defining &#8220;independent&#8221; aspect of the Counsel &#8212; its being non-removable by the President and only removable by the Attorney General &#8220;for cause&#8221; or by a special panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals &#8212; was necessarily at irreconcilable loggerheads with the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s exclusive vesting of &#8220;the executive power&#8221; in the President of the United States. Since the enforcement of law and the prosecutorial function is the very essence of what &#8220;the executive power&#8221; entails, it follows that the Independent Counsel deprives the President of his plenary constitutional prerogative to &#8220;take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.&#8221; The Independent Counsel, by being outside the direct President/Attorney General law enforcement hierarchy and not being removable by the President despite wielding profound law enforcement power, created a de facto &#8220;fourth branch&#8221; of government and violated the basic tripartite separation of powers constitutional framework. Much like the ability to preclude unwanted foreign nationals from entering the United States is the very quintessence of our national sovereignty, the ability to fully control law enforcement and remove all subordinate officers who hold such prosecutorial power is the very quintessence of &#8220;the executive power&#8221; of which Article II of the Constitution speaks.
Here was Scalia (internal citations modified and/or deleted):
<blockquote>
The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that &#8220;[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.&#8221; Federalist No. 47 (J. Madison). Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless, as are the bills of rights of many nations of the world that have adopted, or even improved upon, the mere words of ours&#8230;
That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish&#8212;so that &#8220;a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,&#8221; Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep&#8217;s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf&#8230;
Is it unthinkable that the President should have such exclusive power, even when alleged crimes by him or his close associates are at issue? No more so than that Congress should have the exclusive power of legislation, even when what is at issue is its own exemption from the burdens of certain laws. No more so than that this Court should have the exclusive power to pronounce the final decision on justiciable cases and controversies, even those pertaining to the constitutionality of a statute reducing the salaries of the Justices. A system of separate and coordinate powers necessarily involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused. As we reiterate this very day, &#8220;[i]t is a truism that constitutional protections have costs.&#8221; Coy v. Iowa. While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty&#8230;
The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.
</blockquote>
The proper constitutional checks against a potentially compromised President, rather than the creation of an unconstitutional office whose very existence necessarily strips the President of control over a core law enforcement function and thus vitiates the solemnity of the Constitution&#8217;s carefully prescribed Article II Vesting Clause (&#8220;[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America&#8221;), is instead much subtler and multi-faceted. Congress can always use its power of the purse to threaten the funding of the presidential agenda and thus bluntly attempt to goad the President into compliance with Congress&#8217;s desired oversight. Congress can also utilize the impeachment tool&#8212;that tool&#8217;s under-utilization throughout American history being one of the most lamentable (non-)developments in our history. And finally, there is always the political check of the ballot box. 
And so it should be here, with Trump. The Constitution has survived far worse (cough, <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14355/weak-gop-obamacare-replacement-woodrow-wilsons-josh-hammer">Woodrow Wilson and FDR</a>, cough) than whatever results&#8212;no matter how seemingly far-fetched&#8212;a full-scale Trump/Russia investigation might ultimately yield. The Constitution does not need to be further perverted to more peculiarly fit Democrats&#8217; dyspeptic state of zealous bloodlust. And make no mistake about it: despite being the lone dissenter in Morrison, the overwhelming consensus in the legal profession and academy today is that Scalia&#8217;s dissent has withstood the test of time and proven to be correct. A bipartisan majority of Congress clearly agreed in 1999, when it became frustrated with Independent Counsel Ken Starr&#8217;s investigation of President Clinton and responded by letting the Independent Counsel position expire of its own accord. And in the recent 2017 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case of <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/AAC6BFFC4C42614C852580490053C38B/$file/15-1177-1640101.pdf">PHH Corp. v. CFPB</a>, perhaps the closest thing to a direct successor to Morrison than anything the federal judiciary has seen in years, Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s outstanding majority opinion relied much more heavily on Scalia&#8217;s famous dissent than it did on the comparatively milquetoast majority opinion.
<blockquote>
The ability to fully control law enforcement and remove all subordinate officers who hold such prosecutorial power is the very quintessence of &#8220;the executive power&#8221; of which Article II of the Constitution speaks.

</blockquote>
By all means, Republicans, do not let brute partisan calculations preclude a congressionally-supported full investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. But any talk of a truly &#8220;independent&#8221; prosecutor &#8212; one who wields legitimate law enforcement power but is not directly removable by the President &#8212; is constitutionally repugnant and needs to be unequivocally quashed. Justice Scalia, after all, would have urged nothing less.
Follow Josh Hammer on <a href="http://twitter.com/josh_hammer">Twitter</a>.

Menu