Something that has been a serious sticking point in time since Justice Scalia created a war of words with a prominent appeals judge Richard Posner. is that there was an allegation that there was actually lying involved in the portrayal of the judicial philosophy of the former Supreme Court judge. At an age of over 75 the judge has been on the bench for the longest of any of the appointees. He is also seen as a leader of the Conservatives on the court.
The review was based on the accusation that the judge had deviated from his normal way of interpreting the law by striking down an edict by the District of Columbia to ban certain types of firearms. The decision used a method of statutory interpretation which was uncommon for the judges traditional conduct and it appeared that he had only done so in order to satisfy and urge to conform to the Conservative norms which has been associated with.
However when questioned about it the judge said that it was plainly a lie. he refers to his judicial philosophy is one of ‘textual originalism’ this means that a judge needs to adhere very strictly to the letter of the law and describe the interpretation that was intended by the people who wrote the law rather than how we would interpret it in the modern context. It is the argument that laws simply do not change over time that underpins this way of thinking.
Posner continued his criticism by saying that a number of judges simply use their own personal prejudices and the use in the formation of their opinions and a record was found from Supreme Court judge saying that this assertion was made in a magazine which is not traditionally written for a legal audience. The judge seems to accept that he is unlikely to become a Supreme Court Chief Judge. The role of the Supreme Court Chief Justice often involves trying to build consensus amongst all of the other judges.
The judge also said the having an approach based on the meaning of the text of laws will not always lead to socially and politically conservative results is united by a number of commentators. His argument this is based on the example of the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront opposing witnesses which he sees as being strengthened and it favor of the criminal defence bar’s position that these rights should be extended more widely to protect their clients. He also firmly rejected any notion that the court had become political. He emphasized that the reason these judges are appointed is because of their standing and reputation in the judicial and legal community at large rather than their political preferences.
On June 28, when the United States Supreme Court passed one of the most controversial decisions of its history which arguably led to a strong position of the President in the election, the court upheld the key provision of the law requiring that most Americans buy health insurance or pay tax. The chief Justice in that case surprisingly joined the Liberal members of the court and Justice Scalia delivered a powerful dissent.