Antonin Skaliya - Antonin Scalia

"Scalia" qayta yo'naltirishlar. Familiya uchun qarang Skaliya (familiya).

Antonin Skaliya
Antonin Skalining portreti, AQSh Oliy sudi sudyasi
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi sudyasi
Ofisda
1986 yil 26 sentyabr - 2016 yil 13 fevral
NomzodRonald Reygan
OldingiUilyam Renxist
MuvaffaqiyatliNil Gorsuch
Sudyasi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi Kolumbiya okrugi okrugi uchun
Ofisda
1982 yil 17 avgust - 1986 yil 26 sentyabr
NomzodRonald Reygan
OldingiRojer Robb
MuvaffaqiyatliDevid Sentelle
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Bosh prokurorining yordamchisi uchun Yuridik maslahat xizmati
Ofisda
1974 yil 22 avgust - 1977 yil 20 yanvar
PrezidentJerald Ford
OldingiRojer S Kramton
MuvaffaqiyatliJon Xarmon
Shaxsiy ma'lumotlar
Tug'ilgan
Antonin Gregori Skaliya

(1936-03-11)1936 yil 11 mart
Trenton, Nyu-Jersi, BIZ
O'ldi2016 yil 13-fevral(2016-02-13) (79 yosh)
Shafter, Texas, BIZ.
Turmush o'rtoqlar
Mureen Makkarti
​
(m. 1960)​
Bolalar9, shu jumladan Evgeniya
Ta'limJorjtaun universiteti (BA )
Garvard universiteti (LLB )
MukofotlarPrezidentning Ozodlik medali (tasma) .svg Prezidentning Ozodlik medali (2018)
Imzo

Antonin Gregori Skaliya (/ˌæntənɪnskəˈliːə/ (Ushbu ovoz haqidatinglang); 1936 yil 11 mart - 2016 yil 13 fevral)[1][n 1] sifatida xizmat qilgan amerikalik huquqshunos edi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi sudyasi 1986 yildan o'limigacha 2016 yilda. U intellektual langar sifatida tavsiflangan originalist va matnshunos sudning konservativ qanotidagi mavqei. Amerika qonunchiligida originalist va matnshunoslik harakatini katalizatori uchun u yigirmanchi asrning eng nufuzli huquqshunoslaridan biri sifatida tavsiflangan,[8] va Oliy sud tarixidagi eng muhim odil sudlovlardan biri.[9] Skaliya o'limidan keyin mukofot bilan taqdirlandi Prezidentning Ozodlik medali 2018 yilda va Antonin Skaliya yuridik fakulteti da Jorj Meyson universiteti uning sharafiga nomlangan.

Skaliya tug'ilgan Trenton, Nyu-Jersi. Dindor Katolik, u o'zining bakalavr darajasini Jorjtaun universiteti. Keyin yuridik diplomini olgan Garvard yuridik fakulteti va olti yilni a Klivlend da yuridik professori bo'lishdan oldin yuridik firma Virjiniya universiteti. 1970-yillarning boshlarida u Nikson va Ford ma'muriyatlari, oxir-oqibat Bosh prokurorning yordamchisi. U ko'p qismini o'tkazdi Karter da o'qituvchilik yillari Chikago universiteti u erda u yangi paydo bo'lgan birinchi fakultet maslahatchilaridan biri bo'ldi Federalistlar jamiyati. 1982 yilda Prezident Ronald Reygan sudyasi sifatida Skaliyani tayinladi AQSh apellyatsiya sudi Kolumbiya okrugi okrugi uchun. 1986 yilda Reygan tomonidan Oliy sudga tayinlangan va bir ovozdan tasdiqlangan Senat, Sudning birinchi sudiga aylandi Italiya-Amerika adolat.

Skaliya himoya qilib, konservativ huquqshunoslik va mafkurani qo'llab-quvvatladi matnshunoslik yilda qonuniy talqin va originalizm yilda konstitutsiyaviy talqin. U hamkasblarini "Ninogrammalar" (taxallusi bilan nomlangan eslatmalar, "Nino") bilan qalampirladi, bu ularni o'z nuqtai nazariga qo'shilishga ishontirishga harakat qildi. U ijro etuvchi hokimiyat vakolatlarini kuchli himoyachisi edi. U bunga ishongan Konstitutsiya ruxsat berilgan o'lim jazosi va huquqini kafolatlamagan abort yoki bir jinsli nikoh. Bundan tashqari, Scalia ko'rib chiqdi tasdiqlovchi harakat va maxsus himoyalangan maqomga ega bo'lgan boshqa siyosat ozchilik guruhlari Konstitutsiyaga zid. Ushbu lavozimlar unga suddagi eng konservativ sudyalardan biri sifatida obro'-e'tibor qozondi. U ko'p hollarda alohida fikrlar bildirdi, ko'pincha sudning ko'pchiligini shafqatsiz so'zlar bilan aybladi. Skaliyaning eng muhim fikrlari orasida uning yolg'iz muxolifligi ham bor Morrison va Olson (an. konstitutsiyasiga qarshi bahs Mustaqil maslahatchi qonuni ), uning ko'pchilik fikri Krouford va Vashington (jinoiy sudlanuvchini aniqlash) qarama-qarshilik to'g'ri ostida 6-o'zgartirish ) va uning ko'pchilik fikri Kolumbiya okrugi va Heller (ushlab turing 2-o'zgartirish AQSh konstitutsiyasiga binoan shaxsiy qurolga egalik huquqini kafolatlaydi).

Dastlabki hayot va ta'lim

Antonin Skaliya 1936 yil 11 martda tug'ilgan Trenton, Nyu-Jersi, va yolg'iz bola edi.[10] Uning otasi Salvatore Eugene Scalia (1903-1986), italiyalik immigrant Sommatino, Sitsiliya, tugatgan Rutgers universiteti va aspirant edi Kolumbiya universiteti va o'g'lining tug'ilishi paytida xizmat xodimi.[11] Katta Skaliya professor bo'ladi Romantik tillar da Bruklin kolleji, u erda u tarafdor bo'lgan rasmiy Yangi tanqid adabiyot nazariyasi maktabi.[12] Uning onasi Ketrin Luiza (nee Panaro) Skaliya (1905-1985), Trentonda italiyalik immigrant ota-onada tug'ilgan va boshlang'ich maktab o'qituvchisi bo'lib ishlagan.[11][13]

1939 yilda Skaliya va uning oilasi ko'chib o'tdi Elmxurst, Kvins, u erda P.S. 13 Clement C. Mur maktabi.[14][15] Tugatgandan so'ng sakkizinchi sinf davlat maktabida,[16] u akademik stipendiya oldi Xavyer o'rta maktabi, a Jizvit yilda harbiy maktab Manxetten,[17] u erda birinchi bo'lib 1953 yil sinfini tugatgan va xizmat qilgan valediktorian.[18] Keyinchalik u ko'p vaqtini maktab ishlarida o'tkazganini va "Men hech qachon salqin bo'lmaganman" deb tan olganini aytdi.[19] Yoshlik davrida u ham faol edi Boy skaut va skautlar milliy sharaf jamiyatining bir qismi bo'lgan Okning tartibi.[20]

Sinfdoshi va kelajakdagi Nyu-York shtatining rasmiy vakili Uilyam Stern o'rta maktab kunlarida Skaliyani esladi: "Bu bola 17 yoshida konservativ edi. Arxikonservativ katolik. U a'zo bo'lishi mumkin edi. Kuriya. U sinfning eng yaxshi o'quvchisi edi. U ajoyib edi, hammadan ustun edi. "[10][21]

1953 yilda Skaliya o'qishga kirdi Jorjtaun universiteti, u erda valediktorianni tugatgan va summa cum laude 1957 yilda a San'at bakalavri tarixda. Kollejda o'qiyotganida, u Jorjtaunning chempioni kollegial munozarachisi edi Filodemiya jamiyati va tanqidiy maqtagan tspian.[22] U o'zining kichik yilini chet elda olib bordi Fribourg universiteti, Shveytsariya.[10] Skaliya huquqshunoslikda o'qigan Garvard yuridik fakulteti, u uchun Notes muharriri bo'lgan Garvard qonuni sharhi.[23] U bitirgan magna cum laude 1960 yilda Sheldonning a'zosi bo'ldi Garvard universiteti. Do'stlik unga 1960 va 1961 yillarda Evropada sayohat qilishga imkon berdi.[24]

Dastlab yuridik martaba (1961-1982)

Skaliya o'zining yuridik faoliyatini Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis xalqaro yuridik firmasida boshladi (hozir Jons kuni ) ichida Klivlend, Ogayo shtati, u erda u 1961 yildan 1967 yilgacha ishlagan.[23] U advokatlik firmasida juda hurmatga sazovor bo'lgan va ehtimol sherikga aylangan bo'lar edi, ammo keyinchalik u uzoq vaqtdan beri o'qitishni niyat qilganligini aytdi. U huquqshunoslik professori bo'ldi Virjiniya universiteti yuridik fakulteti 1967 yilda oilasini ko'chirgan Charlottesville.[25]

To'rt yil Sharlottsvilda bo'lganidan so'ng, Skaliya davlat xizmatiga 1971 yilda kirdi. Prezident Richard Nikson uni bosh maslahatchi etib tayinladi Telekommunikatsiya siyosati idorasi Bu erda uning asosiy vazifalaridan biri kabel televideniesining o'sishi bo'yicha federal siyosatni shakllantirish edi. 1972 yildan 1974 yilgacha u Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining ma'muriy konferentsiyasi, kichik mustaqil agentlik federal byurokratiya faoliyatini takomillashtirishga intilgan.[24] 1974 yil o'rtalarida Nikson uni nomzod qilib ko'rsatdi Bosh prokurorning yordamchisi uchun Yuridik maslahat xizmati.[24] Nikson iste'foga chiqqandan keyin nomzod Prezident tomonidan davom ettirildi Jerald Ford va Scalia 1974 yil 22 avgustda Senat tomonidan tasdiqlangan.[26]

Keyinchalik Votergeyt, Ford ma'muriyati Kongress bilan bir qator to'qnashuvlar bilan shug'ullangan. Skaliya Kongress qo'mitalari oldida bir necha bor guvohlik berib, Ford ma'muriyatining da'volarini himoya qildi ijro etuvchi imtiyoz hujjatlarni topshirishdan bosh tortganligi to'g'risida.[27] Ma'muriyat tarkibida Scalia prezidentga veto qo'yishni ma'qullagan qonun loyihasini qo'llab-quvvatladi Axborot erkinligi to'g'risidagi qonun, bu aktning ko'lamini sezilarli darajada oshiradi. Skalyaning fikri ustun keldi va Ford qonun loyihasiga veto qo'ydi, ammo Kongress uni bekor qildi.[28] 1976 yil boshida Skaliya o'zining yagona ishini Oliy sud oldida muhokama qildi, Alfred Dunhill London, Inc., Kuba Respublikasiga qarshi. AQSh hukumati nomidan Skaliya Dunhillni qo'llab-quvvatladi va bu pozitsiya muvaffaqiyatli bo'ldi.[29]Ford prezidentning mag'lubiyatidan so'ng Jimmi Karter, Skaliya bir necha oy davomida ishlagan Amerika Enterprise Institute.[30]

Keyin u akademiyaga qaytib, yashash joyini oldi Chikago universiteti yuridik fakulteti 1977 yildan 1982 yilgacha,[31] garchi u bir yilni a tashrif buyurgan professor da Stenford yuridik fakulteti.[32] Skaliyaning Chikagodagi davrida, Piter H. Rassel uni Kanada hukumati nomidan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari maxfiy xizmatlari faoliyatini qanday qilib cheklashi mumkinligi to'g'risida hisobot yozish uchun yollagan. McDonald komissiyasi tomonidan buzilgan holatlarni tekshirayotgan edi Kanada qirollik politsiyasi. 1979 yilda tugatilgan hisobot komissiyani fuqarolar erkinliklari va RCMPning aslida tekshirilmagan faoliyati o'rtasida muvozanat o'rnatishni tavsiya qilishni rag'batlantirdi.[33] 1981 yilda u Chikago universiteti yangi tashkil etilgan bo'limining birinchi fakultet maslahatchisi bo'ldi Federalistlar jamiyati.[31]

AQSh shahar sudi apellyatsiya sudi (1982-1986)

Sarg'ish kostyum kiygan keksa odam kameraga o'girilib, ikkala erkak ham bezakli stol oldida turganida, qo'llarini oldiga qo'ygan Skaliya bilan gaplashmoqda.
Prezident Reygan va uning Oliy sudi nomzodi Scalia Oval ofis, 1986 yil 7-iyul

Qachon Ronald Reygan 1980 yil noyabr oyida prezident etib saylangan, Skaliya yangi ma'muriyatda katta mavqega ega bo'lishiga umid qilgan. U lavozimiga intervyu berdi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining bosh advokati, lekin pozitsiya ketdi Reks E. Li, Skalyaning katta umidsizligiga.[34] Skaliga Chikagoda joylashgan joy taklif qilindi AQShning ettinchi davri bo'yicha apellyatsiya sudi 1982 yil boshida, lekin juda nufuzli shaxsga tayinlanishiga umid qilib, buni rad etdi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi Kolumbiya okrugi okrugi uchun (DC davri). O'sha yilning oxirida Reygan Skaliyaga DC tumanidan joy taklif qildi va u Skaliya qabul qildi.[35] U 1982 yil 5 avgustda AQSh Senati tomonidan tasdiqlangan va 1982 yil 17 avgustda qasamyod qabul qilgan.

DC tumanida Scalia kuchli va aqlli qonuniy yozuvlari uchun yuridik doiralarda qarsaklar yutib, konservativ rekord o'rnatdi, bu ko'pincha sudning sud sudyasi sifatida bog'lanib qolgan Oliy sud pretsedentlarini tanqid qildi. Skalining fikrlari Reygan ma'muriyati rasmiylarining e'tiborini tortdi, ular so'zlariga ko'ra The New York Times, "ular ko'rgan narsalarning deyarli barchasi yoqdi va ... uni etakchi Oliy sudning istiqbollari ro'yxatiga kiritdi".[36]

Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi (1986–2016)

1986 yilda, Bosh sudya Uorren Burger nafaqaga chiqish niyati haqida Oq uyga xabar berdi. Reygan avval Associate Justice nomzodini ko'rsatishga qaror qildi Uilyam Renxist Bosh sudya bo'lish. Ushbu tanlov shuni anglatadiki, Reygan shuningdek, adolat bo'yicha sherik sifatida Reyxvistning o'rnini egallash uchun nomzodni tanlashi kerak edi.[37] Bosh prokuror Edvin Miz, Reyganga tanlov bo'yicha maslahat bergan, faqat Skaliyani va uni jiddiy ko'rib chiqdi Robert Bork, DC apellyatsiya sudi sudyasi hamkasbi.[38] Bu Reyganning Oliy sud sudyasini tanlash uchun so'nggi imkoniyati bo'lishi mumkinligini his qilib, prezident va uning maslahatchilari Bork o'rniga Scaliyani tanladilar. Ushbu qarorga ko'plab omillar ta'sir ko'rsatdi. Reygan birinchi italyan-amerikalik adolatni tayinlamoqchi edi.[39] Bundan tashqari, Skaliya o'n yoshroq edi va sudda ko'proq vaqt xizmat qilishi mumkin edi.[37] Skaliyada ham Borkning "qog'oz izi" yo'qligi afzalligi bor edi;[40] oqsoqol sudya shaxsiy huquqlar to'g'risida bahsli maqolalar yozgan edi.[41] Skaliya Oq uyga chaqirildi va Reyganning nomzodini qabul qildi.[37]

Qachon Senat Adliya qo'mitasi 1986 yil avgust oyida Skaliyaning nomzodi bo'yicha tinglovlar bo'lib o'tdi, u Renxvist nominatsiyasi bo'yicha ikkitomonlama bahs yuritgan qo'mitaga duch keldi. Guvohlar va demokrat senatorlar, Rexkist sudya bo'lishidan oldin ozchilikni ovoz berishga yo'l qo'ymaslik bilan shug'ullangan. Qo'mita a'zolari Skaliyadagi ikkinchi jangga unchalik ham tatib ko'rmadilar va har qanday holatda ham Italiya-Amerika Oliy sudining birinchi nomzodiga qarshi chiqishni xohlamadilar.[42] Abort yoki fuqarolik huquqlari kabi bahsli masalalarda sudyaga qattiq bosim o'tkazilmadi.[43] Sudda uning rafiqasi va orqasida o'tirgan to'qqiz nafar farzandi bilan qatnashgan Skaliya, Ogayo shtatining Demokratik partiyasidan senator bilan hazil almashish uchun vaqt topdi. Xovard Metzenbaum, u tennis musobaqasida mag'lubiyatga uchragan, nomzod aytganidek, "halolligim hukmimni yengib chiqadigan ish".[44]

Skaliya qo'mitaning qarshiliklariga duch kelmadi. Senatning to'liq tarkibi Skaliyaning nomzodini qisqa muddatgacha muhokama qildi va uni 1986 yil 17 sentyabrda 98-0 hisobida tasdiqladi va shu tariqa uni birinchi italiyalik-amerikalik adliya qildi. Ushbu ovoz Rehnquistning bosh sudya sifatida tasdiqlanishidan keyin o'sha kuni 65-33 ovoz bilan amalga oshirildi. Skaliya 1986 yil 26 sentyabrda o'z o'rnini egalladi. Bir qo'mita a'zosi, Demokrat Delaver shtatining senatori Jo Bayden, keyinchalik "juda samarali bo'lganligi sababli" Skaliga qarshi bo'lmaganligidan pushaymon bo'lganini aytdi.[45]

Hukumat tuzilishi va vakolatlari

Vakolatlarni taqsimlash

AQSh Oliy sudi Sud sudyasi Antonin Skaliya sud oldida guvohlik berdi Senat Adliya qo'mitasi haqida hokimiyatni taqsimlash va AQSh hukumatining muvozanatlari

Skaliyaning fikriga ko'ra, qonun chiqaruvchi, ijro etuvchi va sud hokimiyatlari o'rtasida aniq ajratish to'g'ridan-to'g'ri Konstitutsiyadan kelib chiqadi, boshqa filialga berilgan vakolatlarni amalga oshirish huquqiga ega bo'lmagan.[46] Sudda ishlagan dastlabki kunlarida u 1988 yilda kuchli va yakka fikrli mualliflik dissertatsiyasini yozgan Morrison va Olson, sudning ko'pchiligi uni qo'llab-quvvatladi Mustaqil maslahatchi qonuni. Skaliyaning o'ttiz sahifalik norozilik loyihasi Adolatni hayratda qoldirdi Garri Blekmun uning hissiy tarkibi uchun; Blekmun "agar Scalia baqirishni tashlab qo'ysa, uni o'n sahifaga qisqartirish mumkinligini" his qildi.[47] Skaliya qonun qonun chiqaruvchi tomonidan ijro etuvchi hokimiyatga asossiz ravishda tajovuz bo'lganligini ko'rsatdi. U shunday ogohlantirdi: "Ko'pincha sudning oldida, masalan, qo'y kiyimida bunday muammo chiqadi ... Ammo bu bo'ri bo'ri kabi keladi".[47]

1989 yilgi ish Mistretta va Qo'shma Shtatlar ga qarshi chiqdi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining jazo komissiyasi, a'zolari (ba'zilari federal sudyalar) faqat yaxshi sabablarga ko'ra olinadigan sud filiali tarkibidagi mustaqil organ. Murojaatchining ta'kidlashicha, kelishuv hokimiyatning bo'linishini buzadi va Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari uchun jazo qo'llanmasi Komissiya tomonidan e'lon qilingan, bekor qilingan. Sakkiz sudya Blekmun tomonidan yozilgan ko'pchilik fikriga qo'shilib, ko'rsatmalarni konstitutsiyaviy deb qo'llab-quvvatladilar.[48] Skaliya, ko'rsatmalarning chiqarilishi Kongress vakolat bera olmaydigan qonun ijodkorligi funktsiyasi ekanligini aytib, norozi bo'ldi.[49] va Komissiyani "navqiron kongressning bir turi" deb nomladi.[47]

1996 yilda Kongress Veto qonuni, bu prezidentga an-dan narsalarni bekor qilishga imkon berdi mablag 'ajratish to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi (sarflashga ruxsat beruvchi qonun loyihasi) qonun qabul qilinganidan keyin. Keyingi yili nizomga e'tiroz bildirildi. Bu masala tezlik bilan Oliy sudga etib bordi va sud qonunni buzgan deb topdi Taqdimot moddasi Prezidentning Kongressning har ikkala palatasidan o'tganidan keyin qonun loyihasi bilan nima qilishga ruxsat berilishini tartibga soluvchi Konstitutsiyaning.[50] Scalia, taqdimot bandining qiyinchiliklarini ko'rmaganligini va bu harakat hokimiyat taqsimotini buzmasligini his qilgan holda, fikrlarini rad etdi. Uning ta'kidlashicha, prezidentga ajratishni bekor qilish vakolatini berish, konstitutsiyaviy sifatida uzoq vaqtdan beri qabul qilingan, o'z ixtiyori bilan ajratishni sarflashiga imkon berishdan farq qilmaydi.[51]

Hibsga olinganlarning ishlari

Qora xalat kiygan to'qqiz hakam kostyum kiygan yana uch kishi bilan suratga tushishdi.
2009–2010 yillardagi sud, prezident bilan Barak Obama, Vitse prezident Jo Bayden va adolatni nafaqaga chiqarish Devid Sauter Scalia o'ngdan to'rtinchi

2004 yilda, yilda Rasul va Bush Sud, federal sudlarga ega edi yurisdiktsiya eshitmoq habeas corpus da hibsga olinganlar tomonidan yuborilgan arizalar Guantanamo qamoqxonasi. Skaliya Guantanamodagi shaxslar bilan bog'liq ishlarni ko'rib chiqishi mumkinligi to'g'risida qaror qabul qilib, "ijro etuvchi tuzoqni tuzishda" ko'pchilikni aybladi, chunki hech bir federal sud u erdagi odamlar bilan bog'liq ishlarni ko'rib chiqish vakolatiga ega emas.[52]

Skaliya (Adolat qo'shildi Jon Pol Stivens ) 2004 yilgi ishda ham dissident Hamdi va Ramsfeld, o'z ichiga olgan Yaser Hamdi, AQSh fuqarosi, degan ayblov bilan hibsga olingan dushman jangchisi. Sud, Kongress Hamdini hibsga olishga ruxsat bergan bo'lsa-da, Beshinchi tuzatish, AQShda dushman jangchisi [Hamdi] sifatida saqlanayotgan fuqaroga ushbu hibsga olish uchun betaraf qaror qabul qiluvchiga qarshi kurashish huquqini beradi. Skaliya bu fikrni aytdi AUMF (Terroristlarga qarshi harbiy kuch ishlatish uchun ruxsatnoma) to'xtatib turish uchun o'qib bo'lmadi habeas corpus va sud Hamdini hibsga olish uchun prezidentga vakolat bermagan Kongress qonunchiligiga duch kelib, "Hammasi to'g'ri chiqishiga" harakat qilmoqda.[53]

2006 yil mart oyida Skaliya Shveytsariyaning Fribourg universitetida ma'ruza qildi. U hibsga olinganlarning huquqlari to'g'risida so'ralganda, u shunday javob berdi: "Menga dam bering ... Mening o'sha jang maydonida bir o'g'lim bor edi va ular mening o'g'limga qarata o'q otishdi, men urushda asirga olingan bu odamga to'la pul bermoqchi emasman. sudyalar sudi. Bu aqldan ozgan demoqchiman ".[54] Garchi Skaliya biron bir shaxsni nazarda tutmagan bo'lsa-da, Oliy sud bu ishni ko'rib chiqmoqchi edi Salim Ahmed Hamdan, taxmin qilingan haydovchi Usama bin Laden, kimga qarshi chiqdi harbiy komissiyalar Guantanamo qamoqxonasida.[54] Hamdanning pozitsiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlagan bir guruh iste'fodagi harbiy ofitserlar Skalidan iltimos qildilar rad etish o'zi yoki u rad etgan ishni ko'rib chiqishdan chetga chiqing.[55] Sud 5-3 yilda bo'lib o'tdi Hamdan va Ramsfeld federal sudlarning Hamdanning da'volarini ko'rib chiqish vakolatiga ega ekanligi; Skaliya, norozilik bilan, Hamdanning arizasini ko'rib chiqadigan har qanday sud vakolatining bekor qilinganligini ta'kidladi yurisdiktsiyani olib tashlash Qamoqqa olinganlarni davolash to'g'risidagi qonun 2005 yil[56]

Federalizm

Yilda federalizm federal hukumat vakolatlarini shtatlarnikiga qarshi qo'yadigan holatlar, Skaliya ko'pincha shtatlarning pozitsiyalarini egallagan. 1997 yilda Oliy sud ushbu ishni ko'rib chiqdi Printz AQShga qarshi, ba'zi qoidalariga qarshi chiqish Brady to'pponchasida zo'ravonlikning oldini olish to'g'risidagi qonun Bu shtatlardagi mahalliy huquqni muhofaza qilish idoralari xodimlaridan ma'lum vazifalarni bajarishni talab qilgan. Yilda Printz, Skaliya sudning ko'pchilik qarorini yozdi. Oliy sud ushbu majburiyatlarni buzgan deb belgilagan qoidalarni konstitutsiyaga zid deb topdi O'ninchi o'zgartirish federal hukumatga berilmagan vakolatlarni shtatlarga va odamlarga saqlab qoladi.[57] 2005 yilda Scalia bunga rozi bo'ldi Gonsales va Raich, o'qigan Savdo qoidalari Kongressdan foydalanishni taqiqlashi mumkin marixuana davlatlar undan foydalanishni ma'qullagan taqdirda ham tibbiy maqsadlar. Scalia, "Tijorat" moddasi bilan birgalikda, deb ta'kidladi Kerakli va to'g'ri band, tartibga solishga ruxsat berdi. Bundan tashqari, Skaliya, agar bu davlatlararo tijoratni umumiy tartibga solishning zaruriy qismi bo'lsa, Kongress ichki ishlarni tartibga solishi mumkin deb hisoblagan.[58] U bu qarorga asoslandi Vikard va Filbern, endi u yozgan "Savdo bandini barcha sabablarga ko'ra kengaytirdi".[59]

Skaliya mavjudligini rad etdi Salbiy tijorat moddasi ta'limot,[60][61] buni "sud firibgarligi" deb atash.[62]

Skaliya keng qarashga ega edi O'n birinchi tuzatish federal sudlarda shtatlarga qarshi muayyan da'volarni bekor qiladi. Uning 1989 yilgi noroziligida Pensilvaniya v. Union gaz Co., Scalia, davlatlar tomonidan har qanday taslim bo'lishini istovchilar tomonidan hech qanday niyat yo'qligini aytdi suveren immunitet va o'n birinchi tuzatishni qo'zg'atgan ish, Chisholm va Gruziya, ular uchun ajablanib bo'ldi. Skaliyaning konstitutsiyaviy qarashlari bo'yicha so'rovnoma yozgan professor Ralf Rossum, o'n birinchi tuzatishga nisbatan odil sudlovning fikri aslida tuzatishlar tiliga zid bo'lganligini taxmin qilmoqda.[63]

Shaxsiy huquqlar

Abort

Skaliya abort qilishga konstitutsiyaviy huquq yo'qligini va agar odamlar qonuniy ravishda abort qilishni xohlasalar, uni amalga oshirish uchun qonun qabul qilish kerakligini ta'kidladilar.[19] Uning 1992 yildagi alohida fikrida Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi, Scalia quyidagilarni yozgan:

Shtatlar, agar xohlasalar, abortga talab bo'yicha ruxsat berishlari mumkin, ammo Konstitutsiya ulardan buni talab qilmaydi. Abortning joizligi va unga qo'yilgan cheklovlar bizning demokratiyamizdagi eng muhim savollar singari hal qilinishi kerak: fuqarolar bir-birlarini ishontirishga urinib, keyin ovoz berish orqali.[64]

Skaliya bir necha bor hamkasblarini zarba berishga chaqirdi Roe Vadega qarshi. Skaliya zarba berish uchun beshta ovoz topishga umid qildi Roe 1989 yilda Reproduktiv salomatlik xizmatlari ammo buni amalga oshirishda muvaffaqiyat qozonmadi. adolat Sandra Day O'Konnor ishda ko'rib chiqilayotgan abort qilish qoidalarining turishiga yo'l qo'yib, lekin ularni bekor qilmasdan, sud qaroriga mualliflik qildi Roe. Skaliya faqat qisman rozi bo'ldi.[65] Skaliya shunday deb yozgan edi: "Adolat O'Konnorning" sud cheklovining asosiy qoidasi "bizni qayta ko'rib chiqishdan qochishni talab qiladi degan fikri Roe jiddiy qabul qilinishi mumkin emas ".[66] U ta'kidlaganidek: "Endi biz jamoatchilikdan pochta bilan to'ldirilgan kamida yana bir aravani va namoyishchilar bilan to'la ko'chalarni kutishimiz mumkin".[67]

Sud 2000 yilda ishda abort qilish masalasiga qaytdi Stenberg va Karxart, bu Nebraska qonunini bekor qilishni bekor qildi tug'ma abort. adolat Stiven Breyer sudga ushbu qonun konstitutsiyaga zid ekanligini, chunki bu ayolning sog'lig'i uchun istisnoga yo'l qo'ymasligini yozgan. Skaliyani taqqoslab, norozi edi Stenberg Oliy sud tarixidagi eng yomon ko'rilgan ikki ish bo'yicha ish: "Men bir kun kelib, ishonish uchun etarlicha optimistikman Stenberg va Karxart sud sud yurisprudentsiyasi tarixidan tashqari o'zining munosib o'rnini egallaydi Korematsu va Dred Skott. Odam bolasini o'ldirish usuli ... ushbu nizomda nazarda tutilgani shu qadar dahshatliki, uning eng klinik tavsifi qo'zg'alish titrashini keltirib chiqaradi ".[68]

2007 yilda Sud qisman tug'ilishni abort qilishni taqiqlovchi federal qonunni qo'llab-quvvatladi Gonsales va Karxart.[69] Chikago universiteti yuridik professori Jeffri R. Stoun, Skaliyaning sobiq hamkasbi tanqid qildi Gonsales, din natijaga ta'sir qilganligi sababli ko'pchilik beshta sudya katolik bo'lganligi, norozi bo'lganlar protestant yoki yahudiy bo'lganligi haqida.[70] Bu Skalyani shunchalik g'azablantirdiki, u Stikon bor ekan, Chikago universitetida gaplashmasligini aytdi.[71]

Irq, jins va jinsiy orientatsiya

Skaliya odatda irq, jins yoki jinsiy orientatsiya bo'yicha farq qiluvchi qonunlarni bekor qilish uchun ovoz berdi. 1989 yilda u sudning sud qaroriga rozi bo'ldi Richmond shahri va J.A. Croson Co., unda Sud murojaat qilgan qattiq nazorat oz miqdordagi ozchiliklarga borishi uchun ma'lum miqdordagi shartnomalarni talab qiladigan shahar dasturiga va dasturni bekor qildi. Biroq, Skaliya ko'pchilikning fikriga qo'shilmadi. U sud uchun Okonnorning fikriga qo'shilmadi, chunki sudlar, agar shtatlar va mahalliy aholi o'tmishdagi kamsitishlarni aniqlasa va dasturlar o'tmishdagi irqchilikni bartaraf etishga mo'ljallangan bo'lsa, irqqa asoslangan dasturlarni yo'lga qo'yishi mumkin.[72] Besh yildan so'ng, yilda Adarand Constructors, Inc., Peña, u sudning qaroriga va qisman federal dasturlarni qattiq tekshirishni kengaytiradigan fikrga qo'shildi. Skaliya ushbu masalada hukumat hech qachon irqiy imtiyozlar bilan kamsitilishini qoplash uchun hech qachon jiddiy manfaatdor bo'la olmaydi, deb ta'kidladi.

Irqiy huquq kontseptsiyasini ta'qib qilish, hatto eng hayratga soladigan va eng yaxshi maqsadlar uchun ham - irqiy qullik, irqiy imtiyoz va irqiy nafratni keltirib chiqargan fikrlash tarzini mustahkamlash va kelajakdagi buzuqlik uchun saqlab qolishdir. Hukumat nazarida biz bu erda faqat bitta irqmiz. Bu Amerika.[73]

2003 yilda Grutter va Bollinger, irqiy imtiyozlarni o'z ichiga olgan Michigan universiteti huquqshunoslik fakulteti, Skaliya sudning ko'pchiligining ushbu maktab irqni turlicha bo'lishiga ko'maklashish va "irqlararo tushunishni" oshirish uchun qabul qilishda omil sifatida foydalanishni davom ettirish huquqiga ega degan xulosasini masxara qildi. Skaliya ta'kidladi,

Bu, albatta, o'quvchilarning yuridik fakulteti stsenariysi (boshqalar bilan yaxshi ishlaydi va boshqalar bilan yaxshi o'ynaydi: B +) bo'yicha baholanadigan yoki huquqshunoslar tomonidan sinovdan o'tkaziladigan "ta'lim foydasi" emas (Savol: 500 so'z bilan tavsiflang yoki sizning xochingizdan kamroq) - irqiy tushuncha). Chunki bu qonun emas, balki hayot darsidir - aslida xuddi shu dars, to'laqonli kattalarnikidan uch fut qisqa va yigirma yosh kichikroq odamlarga o'rgatilgan (aniqrog'i, o'rganilgan). Michigan universiteti yuridik fakulteti, Boy Skaut qo'shinlaridan tortib davlat maktablari bolalar bog'chalariga qadar.[74]

Skaliya, jinslar o'rtasidagi farqni keltirib chiqaradigan qonunlarga bo'ysunish kerakligini ta'kidladi oraliq tekshirish, gender tasnifi hukumatning muhim vazifalari bilan jiddiy bog'liqligini talab qiladi.[75] 1996 yilda sud sudga kirishni istagan ayol tomonidan berilgan da'voni qanoatlantirdi Virjiniya harbiy instituti bo'lgan holatda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va Virjiniya, Scalia yakka va uzoq vaqtgacha norozilik bildirdi. Skalining ta'kidlashicha, Sud Virjiniyadan bitta jinsga qabul qilish siyosati uchun "o'ta ishonarli asos" ko'rsatishni talab qilib, oraliq tekshiruvni "qat'iy tekshiruvdan ajratib bo'lmaydigan qilib" qayta belgilagan.[76]

Burger sudining yakuniy qarorlaridan birida, Sud 1986 yilda qaror qabul qildi Bowers va Xardvik bu "gomoseksual sodomiya"[77] tomonidan himoyalanmagan maxfiylik huquqi va davlatlar tomonidan jinoiy javobgarlikka tortilishi mumkin.[78] Biroq, 1995 yilda ushbu qaror amalda bekor qilindi Romer va Evans Kolorado shtatining konstitutsiyaviy tuzatishini bekor qilgan, xalq ovozi bilan qabul qilingan, diskriminatsiya to'g'risidagi qonunlarning jinsiy yo'nalishga tatbiq etilishini taqiqlagan.[79] Skaliya Adliya Kennedining fikriga qarshi chiqdi va bunga ishondi Bowers shtatlarning bunday choralarni ko'rish huquqini himoya qilgan va Kolorado shtatidagi tuzatish kamsituvchi emas, balki faqat gomoseksuallarning Kolorado qonuni bo'yicha maqomga ega bo'lishiga to'sqinlik qilgan.[80] Keyinchalik Skaliya aytdi Romer, "Va Oliy sud:" Ha, bu konstitutsiyaga ziddir ", dedi. Men bilmayman, "Huquqlar to'g'risida" gi qonunning "Jinsiy ustunlik" bandi, ehtimol. Liberallar buni yaxshi ko'rishardi va konservatorlar tishlarini g'ijirlatishdi ".[81]

2003 yilda, Bowers tomonidan rasmiy ravishda bekor qilingan Lourens va Texasga qarshi, undan Skaliya norozi. Ga binoan Mark V. Tushnet Renxist sudida o'tkazgan so'rovnomasida, ishda og'zaki bahslashish paytida Skaliya davlatning dalilini berishga shunchalik intilgandek tuyuldi, shu sababli Bosh sudya aralashdi.[82] Uning biografiga ko'ra, Joan Biskupic, Skaliya o'z muxolifatining aksariyatini chetga surishga shuncha tayyor bo'lganligi uchun "masxara qildi" Bowers bir xil odil sudlovlar bekor qilinishdan bosh tortganlarida Roe yilda Rejalashtirilgan ota-ona v Keysi.[83] 2009 yil mart oyida ochiqchasiga gey kongressmen Barni Frank uni "gomofob" deb ta'riflagan.[84] Morin Dovd 2003 yil ustunida Skaliyani "Archi Bunker baland suyanchiqli stulda "deb nomlangan.[85] Uchrashuvda The New York Times, federal apellyatsiya sudyasi Richard Pozner va Jorjiya davlat universiteti yuridik professori Erik Segall Skaliyaning gomoseksualizmga nisbatan pozitsiyasini radikal deb atadi va Skaliyaning "siyosiy idealini" verg majoritar teokratiya ".[86] Skaliyaning sobiq xodimi Ed Uilan buni "qoralash va chalg'itish" deb atagan.[87] Professor Jon O. McGinnis ham javob berdi,[88] keyingi almashinuvlarga olib keladi.[89][90]

2013 yilda Xollingsvort va Perri deb nomlanuvchi Kaliforniyadagi ovoz berish tashabbusi bilan bog'liq bo'lgan Taklif 8 Kaliforniya shtati Konstitutsiyasiga bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash to'g'risida o'zgartirish kiritgan Skaliya, ko'pchilik ovoz bilan taqiqni bekor qilgan pastki sud qarorini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun ovoz berdi. Qaror shikoyatchilarning 8-taklifning konstitutsiyaga muvofiqligi masalasida emas, balki apellyatsiya shikoyati berish huquqiga ega emasligi bilan asoslandi.[91]

Shuningdek, 2013 yilda Skaliya ko'pchilikning fikriga qarshi chiqdi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Vindzor. Yilda Vindzor, Sud Uchinchi bo'limni o'tkazdi Nikohni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun (DOMA) (federal hukumat maqsadlarida "nikoh" va "turmush o'rtog'i" atamalarini faqat qarama-qarshi jinsdagi kasaba uyushmalariga taalluqli deb belgilagan) Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band ning Beshinchi o'zgartirish.[92] Skaliyaning noroziligi, unga to'liq sudya Tomas va qisman bosh sudya Roberts qo'shildi,[93] ochildi:

Bu ish bir necha jihatdan kuch haqida. Gap xalqimizning o'zini o'zi boshqarish qudrati va ushbu sudning qonunni e'lon qilish vakolati haqida. Bugungi fikr ikkinchisini yuksaltiradi, natijada avvalgisining kamayishi bashorat qilinishi mumkin. Bu ishni hal qilishga bizning kuchimiz yo'q. Agar shunday qilgan bo'lsak ham, Konstitutsiyaga binoan ushbu demokratik yo'l bilan qabul qilingan qonunchilikni bekor qilish huquqimiz yo'q.

Skaliyaning ta'kidlashicha, sud qarorida bir jinsli nikohning muxoliflari "insoniyat dushmani" sifatida samarali tavsiflangan:[94] U sudning qarori ta'sir qiladi deb ta'kidladi bir jinsli nikohni davlat tomonidan taqiqlash shuningdek:

Ushbu Sudga kelsak, hech kim aldanmasligi kerak; Gap boshqa poyafzalni tinglash va kutish bilan bog'liqdir. Bir jinsli nikohga qarshi bo'lganlarni rasmiy ravishda inson odob-axloqining dushmani deb e'lon qilish orqali, aksariyat davlat qonuniga har bir da'vogarni qurollantiradi, bu nikohni an'anaviy ta'rifi bilan cheklaydi.[95]

Skalianing so'zlariga ko'ra, Oliy sud "ikkala tomonni ham aldab, halol g'alaba qozongan g'oliblarni va adolatli mag'lubiyatdan kelib chiqadigan tinchlikni yo'qotadiganlarni talon-taroj qildi".[92]

2015 yilda Skaliya ko'pchilikning fikriga qarshi chiqdi Obergefell va Xodjessud qaroriga binoan, nikohning asosiy huquqi bir xil jinsdagi juftliklar uchun ham tegishli protsedura moddasi, ham o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning teng himoya moddasi bilan kafolatlangan. O'zining noroziligida Skaliya sud qarori amalda odamlarni "o'zini o'zi boshqarish erkinligini" o'g'irlaganligini ta'kidlab, bir jinsli nikoh to'g'risidagi qat'iy munozaralar bo'lib o'tganini va bu masalani butun mamlakat bo'ylab hal qilish orqali demokratik jarayon sodir bo'lganligini ta'kidladi. to'xtatildi.[96] Da'vo qilingan shaxsga murojaat qilish O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish qonunbuzarlik, Skaliyaning ta'kidlashicha, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish qabul qilingan paytda bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash konstitutsiyaga zid hisoblanmagan bo'lar edi, chunki bunday taqiqlar 2015 yilda konstitutsiyaga zid kelmaydi.[97] U sud tomonidan o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish aniq taqiqlamagan qonunchilikni bekor qilish uchun "hech qanday asos yo'q" deb da'vo qildi va "hatto ingichka qonun qoplamasi yo'qligi" uchun to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ko'pchilik fikriga hujum qildi.[97] Va nihoyat, Skaliya ushbu yozuvni "aniq fikrlash va hushyor tahlil qilish uchun ushbu Sudning obro'sini pasayishiga" va "intizomiy huquqiy asoslardan tushishiga" aybdor deb topdi. Jon Marshall va Jozef hikoyasi boylik cookiesining sirli aforizmlariga. "[98]

Jinoyat qonuni

Skalya ko'ylak va galstuk ustiga bej rangli ko'ylagi kiyib, kamerani oldinga qarab, Evropa saylov huquqlari assotsiatsiyasining vakili Yurij Toplak bilan qo'l berib ko'rdi.
Skaliya (o'ngda) da Garvard yuridik fakulteti 2006 yil 30-noyabrda

Skaliya ishongan o'lim jazosi konstitutsiyaviy bo'lish.[99][100] U o'lim jazosini konstitutsiyaga zid bo'lgan ayrim guruhlarga, masalan, huquqbuzarlik paytida 18 yoshga to'lmaganlarga nisbatan qo'llaniladigan qarorlarga qarshi chiqdi. Yilda Tompson va Oklaxoma (1988), u sud tomonidan jinoyat sodir etilgan paytda 15 yoshga to'lgan shaxslarga nisbatan o'lim jazosi qo'llanilishi mumkin emasligi to'g'risidagi qaroridan norozi bo'lib, keyingi yil sud xulosasiga mualliflik qildi. Stenford va Kentukki, 16 yoshida o'ldirganlar uchun o'lim jazosini saqlab qolish, ammo 2005 yilda Sud bekor qildi Stenford yilda Roper va Simmons va Scalia yana norozi bo'lib, ko'pchilikning o'ldirilganlarning qatl qilinishiga qarshi milliy konsensus paydo bo'ldi degan da'volarini masxara qildi. voyaga etmagan, o'lim jazosiga ruxsat bergan shtatlarning yarmidan kami voyaga etmagan qotillar uchun taqiqlanganligini ta'kidladi. U ko'pchilikni o'lim jazosini bekor qilgan davlatlarni o'z tarkibiga qo'shganligi uchun jazoladi va buni amalga oshirish "aksincha eski amishmenlarni iste'molchilarning elektromobilga bergan so'roviga qo'shib qo'yish kabi bo'lganligini aytdi. Albatta, ular buni yoqtirmaydilar. , ammo bu masala bo'yicha har qanday narsani yoritmaydi ".[101] 2002 yilda, yilda Atkins va Virjiniya, Sud aqli zaiflarga nisbatan qo'llanilgan o'lim jazosini konstitutsiyaga zid deb topdi. 1791 yilda qabul qilingan "Huquqlar to'g'risida" gi qonunni qabul qilish paytida engil aqli zaiflarni qatl qilish shafqatsiz yoki g'ayrioddiy deb hisoblanmasligini va sud bu amaliyotga qarshi milliy konsensus hosil bo'lganligini ko'rsatolmaganligini aytib, Skaliga qarshi chiqdi.[102]

Skaliya sud qarorini qat'iyan norozi qildi Miranda va Arizona, hibsga olingan gumonlanuvchining tan olmaganligi huquqlari to'g'risida maslahat berdi sudda yo'l qo'yilmadi va u bekor qilish uchun ovoz berdi Miranda 2000 yilda Dikerson va Qo'shma Shtatlar ammo Adolat bilan ikkitadan ozchilikda edi Klarens Tomas. Qo'ng'iroq qilish Miranda "sud tomonidan haddan tashqari ko'tarilishning muhim bosqichi" degan qarorni qabul qilgan Skaliya sud o'z xatolarini tuzatishdan qo'rqmasligini aytdi.[103]

Garchi, ko'pgina sohalarda, Skaliyaning yondashuvi jinoiy javobgarlar uchun noqulay bo'lgan bo'lsa-da, u sud bilan bog'liq masalalarda ayblanuvchilar tomonini oldi. Qarama-qarshilik to'g'risidagi maqola ning Oltinchi o'zgartirish, bu sudlanuvchilarga o'z ayblovchilariga qarshi turish huquqini kafolatlaydi. Ko'p hollarda Skaliya bolalar zo'ravonligi qurbonlari ekranda yoki yopiq televidenie orqali guvohlik berishga ruxsat beruvchi qonunlarga qarshi yozgan.[104] 2009 yilda Skaliya ko'pchilik fikrlarni yozgan Melendez-Diaz va Massachusetsga qarshi sudlanuvchilar giyohvand moddalar bilan bog'liq ishlarda laboratoriya mutaxassislariga qarshi chiqish imkoniyatiga ega bo'lishlari va moddaning giyohvandlik moddasi ekanligini isbotlash uchun tahlil sertifikati etarli emasligini hisobga olib.[105]

Skaliya har bir narsani ta'kidladi element hukmni aniqlashga yordam beradigan jinoyat sudlanuvchi tomonidan tan olinishi yoki oltinchi tuzatishning hakamlar hay'ati kafolati bilan hakamlar hay'ati tomonidan topilishi kerak. 2000 yilda Apprendi va Nyu-Jersiga qarshi, Skaliya sudning ko'pchilik fikrlarini sud sudyasi huquqbuzarlik deb topgan taqdirda sudyaning jazoni oshirishga imkon beradigan davlat nizomini bekor qilganligini yozdi. jinoyatdan nafratlanish. Skaliya ushbu protsedurani yo'l qo'yilmaydi, chunki bu nafrat jinoyati ekanligi hakamlar hay'ati tomonidan hal qilinmagan.[106] 2004 yilda u sud uchun yozgan Bleykli va Vashington, shunga o'xshash asoslarda Vashington shtatining hukm bo'yicha ko'rsatmalarini bekor qildi. Ixtilofchilar Bleykli Scalia ushbu ishni sud hukmi bo'yicha federal ko'rsatmalarga hujum qilish uchun ishlatishini oldindan bilgan (u bunga erisha olmagan) Mistretta) va ular to'g'ri ekanligini isbotladilar, chunki Scalia besh a'zodan iborat ko'pchilikni boshqargan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Booker, bu ko'rsatmalar federal sudyalar tomonidan bajarilishi endi majburiy bo'lib qolmadi (ular maslahat sifatida qolaverdi).[106]

2001 yilda Kyllo va Qo'shma Shtatlar, Skaliya sudning fikrini mafkuraviy yo'nalishlarni kesib o'tgan 5–4 qarorida yozgan.[107] Ushbu qaror uyni termal ravishda tasvirlashni asossiz qidiruv deb topdi To'rtinchi o'zgartirish. Sud marixuana ishlab chiqarish bo'yicha sud tekshiruvini o'tkazgandan so'ng chiqarilgan qidiruv orderiga asosan chiqarilgan hukmni bekor qildi, bu garaj yopiq joylarda o'sib borayotgan chiroqlar tufayli uyning qolgan qismidan ancha issiqroq ekanligini ko'rsatdi.[108] To'rtinchi tuzatishni asossiz ravishda qidirish va hibsga olish uchun olib qo'yishni taqiqlash to'g'risidagi arizani qo'llagan holda, Skaliya sudning 1991 yildagi qaroridan norozi. Riversayd okrugi va McLaughlin, to'rtinchi tuzatish qabul qilingan paytda, hibsga olingan shaxsni sud vakolatxonasi huzuriga iloji boricha tezroq olib borish kerakligi sababli, sud buyrug'isiz hibsga olingan shaxsni sud vakolatxonasi oldida olib borishdan oldin 48 soat kechiktirishga ruxsat berish.[109] 1990 yilda Birinchi o'zgartirish ish, R.A.V. Aziz Polga qarshi, Skaliya sudning fikrini hayratda qoldirgan holda yozgan Sent-Luis, Minnesota, nafrat nutqi xochni yoqish uchun prokuratura qarori.[110] Skalining ta'kidlashicha, "Birovning old hovlisida xochni yoqib yuborish aybdor deb hisoblashimizga oid hech qanday xato bo'lmasin. Ammo Sankt-Polda olovga birinchi o'zgartirish kiritmasdan bunday xatti-harakatlarning oldini olish uchun etarli vosita mavjud".[111]

Ikkinchi o'zgartirish

2008 yilda Sud qurollar to'g'risidagi qonunlarga qarshi kurashni ko'rib chiqdi Kolumbiya okrugi. Skaliya ko'pchilik fikrni yozgan Kolumbiya okrugi va Heller ostida qurolga egalik qilish huquqini topgan Ikkinchi o'zgartirish. Skaliya Ikkinchi tuzatishda topilgan "militsiya" so'zini izladi, chunki uni ratifikatsiya qilish paytida tushungan bo'lar edi, keyin bu "barcha fuqarolarning tanasi" degan ma'noni anglatadi.[112] Sud Hellerning okrugda qurolga egalik qilish to'g'risidagi da'vosini qondirdi.[112]

Skalyaning fikri Heller Sud liberallar tomonidan tanqid qilindi va konservatorlar tomonidan olqishlandi.[113] Ettinchi davra hakami Richard Pozner Skalining fikriga qo'shilmadi va Ikkinchi tuzatish "qurolga shaxsiy egalik qilish huquqini yaratmaydi" deb aytdi. Pozner Skaliyaning fikrini "soxta originalizm" va "shaxsiy qadriyatlar va siyosatning afzalliklari to'g'risida tarixiy sir" deb atadi.[114] 2008 yil oktyabr oyida Skaliya sudning originalistlari Ikkinchi tuzatish ratifikatsiya qilingan paytda qurol olish huquqi faqat harbiy kontekstga ega emasligini va ular buni namoyish qilishda muvaffaqiyat qozonganligini ko'rsatishi kerakligini aytdi.[115]

Sud jarayoni va turish

Skaliyaning o'limidan so'ng Pol Barret Bloomberg Businessweek-ga yozgan holda shunday dedi: "Liberal argotomaga tarjima qilish: Skaliya sudga murojaat qilishi mumkin bo'lgan qoidalarni o'zgartirdi". Ushbu masala Skaliyani sud ishlarini yuritish va sud jarayoni uchun qanday sharoitlar yaratilishi va belgilanishi va bunday sud jarayoni kim tomonidan amalga oshirilishiga ta'sir ko'rsatuvchi ta'sir sifatida tan olinishini oshirdi.[116] Devid Rivkin, konservativ nuqtai nazardan, "U (Skaliya) tarixdagi Oliy sud sudyalaridan ko'ra sud hokimiyatining chegaralari va doirasini aniqlashtirish va cheklash uchun ko'proq ish qildi, xususan tik turish va sinfiy harakatlar sohasida" dedi. Skaliya 1983 yildagi qonunni qayta ko'rib chiqishda "Hokimiyatni ajratishning muhim elementi sifatida turish doktrinasi" nomli maqolasidan boshlab o'zining uzoq yillik mavqeini ko'rsatdi. Barret tomonidan sarhisob qilinganidek, "U (Skaliya) sudlar boshqa odamlarning vakolatlarini suiiste'mol qilgan deb yozgan, chunki ko'plab odamlarga korporatsiyalar va davlat idoralariga qarshi da'vo qo'zg'atish, ayniqsa ekologik holatlarda". In a practical sense, Scalia brought to the attention of the Court the authority to restrict "standing" in class action suits in which the litigants may be defined in descriptive terms rather than as well-defined and unambiguous litigants.[117]

Boshqa holatlar

Scalia concurred in the 1990 case of Kruzan va Missuri Sog'liqni saqlash departamenti direktori, in which the family of ayol a vegetative state sought to have her feeding tube removed so she would die, believing that to have been her wish. The Court found for the State of Missouri, requiring clear and convincing evidence of such a desire. Scalia stated that the Court should have remained away from the dispute and that the issues "are [not] better known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory".[112]

Scalia joined the majority har bir kuriam uchun opinion in the 2000 case of Bush va Gor, which effectively ended recounts of ballots in Florida following the 2000 yil AQSh Prezidenti saylovi, and also both concurred separately and joined Rehnquist's concurrence.[118] In 2007, he said of the case, "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush va Gor. We did the right thing. Shunday qilib, u erda! ... get over it. It's so old by now".[119] Intervyusi davomida Charli Rose ko'rsatish, he defended the Court's action:

The decision was not close, it was 7–2 on the principal issue of whether there had been a constitutional violation ... But what if it was unconstitutional to have that recount? You're going to let it continue and come to a conclusion? Va keyin overturn it? The reason to stop it sooner was not, "Ooh, we're worried that it's going to come out the wrong way"... you forget what was going on at the time. We were the laughingstock of the world. The world's greatest democracy that couldn't conduct an election. We didn't know who our next president was going to be. The lengthy transition that has become standard when you change from one president to another could not begin because you didn't know who the new president was going to be. It was becoming a very serious problem. The issue before the United States Supreme Court is: having decided the case, having decided this is unconstitutional, should we nonetheless let the election go on? Or is it time cut it off and let's move on?[120]

Scalia in 2010

Legal philosophy and approach

Judicial performance

During oral argument before the court, Scalia asked more questions and made more comments than any other justice.[121] A 2005 study found that he provoked laughter more often than any of his colleagues did.[122] His goal during oral arguments was to get across his position to the other justices.[123]Kanzas universiteti social psychologist Lawrence Wrightsman wrote that Scalia communicated "a sense of urgency on the bench" and had a style that was "forever forceful".[121] After Chief Justice Jon Roberts joined the Court in 2005, he took to quizzing lawyers in a manner similar to Scalia's; sometimes the two questioned counsel in seeming coordination.[123] Dahliya Litvik ning Slate described Scalia's technique as follows:

Scalia doesn't come into oral argument all secretive and sphinxlike, feigning indecision on the nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.[124]

Scalia wrote numerous opinions from the start of his career on the Supreme Court. During his tenure, he wrote more fikrlarni kelishib olish than any other justice. Only two justices have written more dissents.[125] According to Kevin Ring, who compiled a book of Scalia's dissenting and concurring opinions: "His opinions are ... highly readable. His entertaining writing style can make even the most mundane areas of the law interesting".[126] Conor Clarke of Slate comments on Scalia's written opinions, especially his dissents:

His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusions—often very funny ones—and he speaks in no uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal jargon. But most of all, Scalia's opinions read like they're about to catch fire for pure outrage. He does not, in short, write like a happy man.[127]

At the Supreme Court, justices meet after the case is briefed and argued and vote on the result. The task of writing the opinion is assigned by the Chief Justice or—if the Chief Justice is in the minority or is not participating—by the senior justice in the majority. After the assignment, the justices generally communicate about a case by sending notes and draft opinions to each other's chambers.[128] In the give-and-take of opinion-writing, Scalia did not compromise his views in order to attract five votes for a majority (unlike the late Justice Uilyam J. Brennan, kichik, who would accept less than what he wanted in order to gain a partial victory).[129] Scalia attempted to influence his colleagues by sending them "Ninograms"—short memoranda aimed at persuading them of the correctness of his views.[125][130]

In an October 2013 issue of Nyu York magazine, Scalia revealed that he scanned The Wall Street Journal va Washington Times, obtained most of his news from talk radio, and did not read The New York Times yoki Washington Post. U tasvirlab berdi Washington Post kabi "shrilly liberal".[131]

Statutory and constitutional interpretation

Sud kiyimi kiygan oq sochli keksa odam, bir nechta odam qarab turganda, kostyum kiygan o'rta yoshli odamga qasam ichdi.
Judge and Mrs. Scalia (left) and President Reagan (right) watch as Chief Justice Uorren Burger swears Uilyam Renxist in as the next Chief Justice, September 26, 1986.

Scalia was a matnshunos yilda qonuniy talqin, believing that the ordinary meaning of a statute should govern.[132]In 1998, Scalia vociferously opposed the idea of a tirik konstitutsiya, or the power of the judiciary to modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.[19] Scalia warned that if one accepted that constitutional standards should evolve with a maturing society, "the risk of assessing evolving standards is that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has culminated in one's own views".[133] He compared the Constitution to statutes he contended were not understood to change their meaning through time.[23]Constitutional amendments, such as the 1868 O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish, according to Scalia, were to be interpreted based on their meaning at the time of ratification.[134] Scalia was often asked how that approach justified the result in the 1954 case of Brown va Ta'lim kengashi, which held that segregated schools were unconstitutional and which relied on the Fourteenth Amendment for the result.[135] Scalia responded to this argument in two ways. He noted research by Michael McConell that "persuasively establishes that this was the original understanding of the post Civil War Amendments." However, Scalia continues by arguing that even if non-originalist methods occasionally produce better results than Originalism, "It is in no way remarkable... that taking power from the people and placing it instead with a judicial aristocracy can produce some creditable results that democracy might not achieve. The same can be said of monarchy and totalitarianism. But once a nation has decided that democracy... is the best system of government, the crucial question becomes which theory of textual interpretation is compatible with democracy. Originalism unquestionably is. Non-originalism, by contrast, imposes on society statutory prescriptions that were never democratically adopted. When applied to the Constitution, nonoriginalism limits the democratic process itself, prohibiting... acts... that 'We The People' never, ever, voted to outlaw.[136]

In interpreting statutes, Scalia did not look to qonunchilik tarixi. In the 2006 case of Zedner v. United States, he joined the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito —all except one paragraph of the opinion, in which Alito cited legislative history. In a concurring opinion in that case, Scalia noted, "The use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the interpretation of any statute".[137]His dislike of legislative history may have been a reason that other justices have become more cautious in its use.[138] Gregory Maggs wrote in the Public Interest Law Review in 1995 that by the early 1990s, legislative history was being cited in only about forty percent of Supreme Court cases involving the interpretation of nizomlar and that no case of that era used legislative history as an essential reason for the outcome. Maggs suggested,

With Justice Scalia breathing down the necks of anyone who peeks into the Congressional Record or Senate reports, the other members of the Court may have concluded that the benefit of citing legislative history does not outweigh its costs. It is likely for this reason that the percentage of cases citing it has decreased dramatically. No one likes an unnecessary fight, especially not one with as formidable an opponent as Justice Scalia.[138]

Scalia described himself as an originalist, meaning that he interpreted the Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasi as it would have been understood when it was adopted. According to Scalia in 2008, "It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution".[19]In 2006, before Jorj V.Bush tayinlanganlar Roberts va Alito had had time to make an impact, Rossum wrote that Scalia had failed to win converts among his conservative colleagues for his use of originalism,[139] whereas Roberts and Alito, as younger men with an originalist approach, greatly admired Scalia battling for what he believed in.[140] Following the appointments of Roberts and Alito, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are identified in their judicial temperament as being originalists with Kavanuagh referred to as "a stalwart originalist" in the tradition of Scalia.[141][142]

In a 2009 public conversation, Justice Stiven Breyer questioned Scalia, indicating that those who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to end school segregation. Scalia called this argument "waving the bloody shirt ning jigarrang" and indicated that he would have joined first Justice Harlan's solitary dissent in Plessi va Fergyuson, the 1896 case that jigarrang bekor qilindi.[143]

Scalia's originalist approach came under attack from critics, who viewed it as "a cover for what they see as Scalia's real intention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 1960s and 70s" reached by the Uorren and Burger Courts.[19] Ralf Nader argued in 2008 that Scalia's originalist philosophy was inconsistent with the justice's acceptance of the extension of certain constitutional rights to corporations when at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, corporations were not commonly understood to possess constitutional rights.[144] Nader's view preceded the Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United Federal saylov komissiyasiga qarshi. Scalia, in his concurrence in that case, traced his understanding of the rights of groups of individuals at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. His argument was based on the lack of an exception for groups such as corporations in the free speech guarantee in the Bill of Rights and on several examples of corporate political speech from the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[145] Professor Thomas Colby of Jorj Vashington universiteti milliy yuridik markazi argued that Scalia's votes in Tashkil etish to'g'risidagi maqola cases do not stem from originalist views but simply from conservative political convictions.[146] Scalia responded to his critics that his originalism "has occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag burning ", which according to Scalia was protected by the First Amendment.[19]

The Roberts Court (October 2010 – February 2016). Old qator: Klarens Tomas, Antonin Scalia, Jon Roberts (Boshliq ), Entoni Kennedi, Rut Bader Ginsburg. Back row: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan.

In 2009, after nearly a quarter century on the Court, Scalia characterized his victories as "damn few".[147]

Yozish Yahudiylarning kundalik hujumchisi in 2009, J.J. Goldberg described Scalia as "the intellectual anchor of the court's conservative majority".[148][149] Scalia traveled to the nation's law schools, giving talks on law and democracy.[125] His appearances on college campuses were often standing room only.[150] Ginsburg indicated that Scalia was "very much in tune with the current generation of law students ... Students now put 'Federalistlar jamiyati ' on their resumes".[151] Jon Pol Stivens, who served throughout Scalia's tenure until his 2010 retirement, said of Scalia's influence, "He's made a huge difference. Some of it constructive, some of it unfortunate".[151] Of the nine sitting justices, Scalia was most often the subject of qonunlarni ko'rib chiqish maqolalar.[150]

Ommaviy e'tibor

Requests for recusals

Ko'ylak kiygan ikki kishi stolda ishlaydi, ularning oldida qog'ozlar bor.
Scalia (right) works on a book with Bryan A. Garner.

Skaliya rad etilgan himself from Elk Grove birlashgan maktab okrugi Newdowga qarshi (2004), a claim brought by atheist Michael Newdow alleging that recitation of the Sadoqat garovi (including the words "under God") in school classrooms violated the rights of his daughter, who he said was also an atheist. Ko'p o'tmay To'qqizinchi davr uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi ruled in Newdow's favor but before the case came before the Supreme Court, Scalia spoke at a Kolumbning ritsarlari voqea Frederiksburg, Virjiniya, stating that the Ninth Circuit decision was an example of how the courts were trying to excise God from public life. The school district requested that the Supreme Court review the case, and Newdow asked that Scalia recuse himself because of this prior statement, which he did without comment.[152]

Scalia declined to recuse himself from Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2005), a case concerning whether Vice President Dik Cheyni could keep secret the membership of an advisory task force on energy policy. Scalia was asked to recuse himself because he had gone on a hunting trip with various persons including Cheney, during which he traveled one way on Ikkinchi havo kuchlari. Scalia issued a lengthy palatalararo fikr refusing to recuse himself, stating that though Cheney was a longtime friend, he was being sued merely in his official capacity and that were justices to step aside in the cases of officials who are parties because of official capacity, the Supreme Court would cease to function. Scalia indicated that it was far from unusual for justices to socialize with other government officials, recalling that the late Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson played poker with President Garri Truman and that Justice Bayron Uayt went skiing with Attorney General Robert F. Kennedi. Scalia stated that he was never alone with Cheney during the trip, the two had not discussed the case, and the justice had saved no money because he had bought round-trip tickets, the cheapest available.[153] Scalia was part of the 7–2 majority once the case was heard, a decision that generally upheld Cheney's position.[154] Scalia later described his refusal to recuse himself as his "most heroic opinion" because it had exposed him to a great deal of criticism.[155][156]

Hakam Gilbert S. Merritt kichik of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals called for Scalia's recusal in Bush va Gor vaqtida.[157] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, writing in Huquq va falsafa, later chronicled such calls and contended that “There were many ways for Justice Scalia's sons to benefit from a decision in favor of Bush. Together these benefits could be substantial. Hence, [the law] required recusal”.[158] Republicans dismissed such calls as partisan, noting that Merritt was a close friend of the Gores and a rumored Gore Supreme Court nominee.[157]

Diniy qarashlar

Scalia was a devout Rim katolik, and his son Paul entered the priesthood. Uncomfortable with the changes brought about following Vatikan II, Scalia drove long distances to parishes he felt were more in accord with his beliefs, including parishes that celebrated the Tridentine Latin Mass in Chicago and Washington,[159] and one celebrating the Latin version[160] ning Pol VI massasi at St. Catherine of Siena in Buyuk Falls, Virjiniya.[161] In a 2013 interview with Jennifer Senior for Nyu York magazine, Scalia was asked whether his beliefs extended to the Devil, and he stated, "Of course! Yeah, he's a real person. Hey, c'mon, that's standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that". When asked whether he had seen recent evidence of the Devil, Scalia replied: "You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing people and whatnot ... What he's doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He's much more successful that way".[131] In another 2013 interview, Scalia said, "In order for capitalism to work, in order for it to produce a good and stable society, traditional Christian virtues are essential".[162]

In 2006, upon leaving church, Scalia was asked by a reporter whether being a traditionalist Catholic had caused problems for him, and he responded by asking, "You know what I say to those people?" and with a gesture, cupping his hand under his chin and flicking his fingers out. The gesture, which got captured by a photographer, was initially reported by the Boston Herald as obscene. Scalia responded to the reports with a letter to the editor, accusing the news staff of watching too many episodes of Sopranoslar and stating that the gesture was a strong brush-off. Roger Axtell, an expert on body language, described the gesture as possibly meaning "I've had enough, go away" and noted, "It's a fairly strong gesture".[163] The gesture was parodied by comedian Stiven Kolbert davomida his performance at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner later that year, with the justice in attendance: cameras showed that unlike most of the butts of Colbert's jokes that evening, Scalia was laughing.[164][165]

1996 yilgi prezident saylovi

Ga binoan Jon Beyner, raisi sifatida Uyning respublika konferentsiyasi, he sought to persuade Scalia to run for election as vice president with Bob Dole in 1996. As related by Boehner, Scalia listened to the proposal and dictated the same reply Justice Charlz Evans Xyuz had once given to a similar query: "The possibility is too remote to comment upon, given my position". Dole did put Scalia on his list of potential running mates but eventually settled on Jek Kemp.[166]

Shaxsiy hayot

On September 10, 1960, Scalia married Maureen McCarthy at St. Pius X church in Yarmut, Massachusets.[167] The two had met on a blind date while he was at Harvard Law School. Maureen was an undergraduate student at Radkliff kolleji when they met; she subsequently obtained a degree in English from the school.[168]

The Scalias had five sons and four daughters.[169] Two of their sons, Evgeniy Skaliya and John Scalia, became attorneys,[170] with Eugene later becoming Mehnat kotibi ichida Tramp ma'muriyati.[171][172] Paul Scalia became a Catholic priest, Matthew Scalia had a military career, and Christopher Scalia became a writer. All four Scalia daughters—Catherine, Ann, Margaret, and Mary—have families. According to Scalia, Maureen raised all nine children "with very little assistance from me".[170] Oila yashagan Maklin, Virjiniya, Vashington shahar atrofi[173]

Scalia enjoyed a warm friendship with fellow Justice Rut Bader Ginsburg, considered a member of the court's liberal wing, with the two attending the opera together and appearing together onstage as ortiqcha raqamlar yilda Washington National Opera's 1994 production of Ariadne auf Naxos.[121] Ginsburg was a colleague of Scalia on the D.C. Circuit, and the Scalias and Ginsburgs had dinner together every New Year's Eve.[174]

Scalia also enjoyed a friendship with fellow Justice Elena Kagan, also considered a member of the court's liberal wing. When Justice Devid Sauter retired, Scalia told Devid Akselrod, an adviser to then-President Barak Obama, that he hoped that Obama would nominate Kagan to replace him. While Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor instead, a year later when Justice Jon Pol Stivens retired, Obama nominated Kagan.[175] An avid hunter, Scalia taught Justice Kagan how to hunt; the two hunted ducks, birds, deer and antelope together.[176][177]

O'lim va dafn marosimi

Scalia died in his sleep[2] at age 79. His body was discovered on the morning of February 13, 2016, in his room[7] da Cibolo Creek Ranch yilda Shafter, Texas. He had gone bedana hunting the afternoon before, and then dined as the guest of Jon B. Poindekster, owner of the ranch.[178][179] After Poindexter discovered the body, he called the Presidio County sheriff's department to ask for the number of the AQSh Marshallari xizmati to report a death. Poindexter was reluctant to say who had died to Sheriff Danny Dominguez. Dominguez had the Marshal's Service call the ranch owner, and both the marshals and the sheriff went to the ranch, where they were shown Scalia's body. Dominguez instructed his office to call local tinchlik adolati Juanita Bishop, but she was out of town.[180]

Tuman sudyasi Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of tabiiy sabablar.[181] She did not see the body, which under Texas law is not required, nor did she order an autopsy.[7] Bishop, as well as David Beebe, another justice of the peace, later disagreed with the decision not to order an autopsy for Scalia. Guevara, who conferred by telephone with Scalia's physician, stated that she made the determination to pronounce Scalia dead from natural causes after being told by county sheriff Dominguez on the scene that "there were no signs of foul play" and that Scalia "was having health issues".[7][182] Scalia's physician, Rear Admiral Brayan P. Monaxan, told her Scalia had a history of heart trouble, including high blood pressure, and was recently deemed too weak to undergo surgery for a torn rotator manjet.[183][184] According to Sunset Funeral Home director Chris Lujan, Scalia's family also declined to have an autopsy performed after his body was transferred to his El-Paso funeral home, prior to its return to Fairfax, Virjiniya.[185]

Following his death, Scalia joyida yotish katta zalida Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sud binosi on February 19th, 2016.[186] Scalia's son, Father Paul Scalia, celebrated a Catholic dafn marosimi and delivered the homily on February 20, 2016, at the Beg'ubor kontseptsiya milliy ma'badi bazilika Vashingtonda[187] The Obama administration was represented at the funeral by Vice President Jo Bayden; Prezident Barak Obama did not attend, though he was at the homily.[188] Scalia's remains were interred at a private ceremony at Fairfax Memorial Park yilda Fairfax, Virjiniya.[187]

Meros

Ta'sir

Yozish Amerikalik tomoshabin, Adam Carrington noted that, "Since his death in February of 2016, Scalia’s influence of course continues through his three decades of judicial opinions. But he still exerts great influence in another, less-discussed way. In 2012, he co-authored the book O'qish to'g'risidagi qonun: huquqiy matnlarning talqini with Bryan A. Garner. This work describes numerous “canons,” or rules regarding how to interpret legal documents ... A mere seven years since its publication, Reading Law has been cited in over 1,000 state and federal cases. Just this spring, for instance, Supreme Court justices referenced the work in 10 cases."[189]

Scalia's promotion of textualism and originalism on the high court led to a shift in the American judiciary's approach to textual interpretation, with greater attention paid to the text itself. The liberal political philosopher Ronald Dvorkin said that because of Scalia, "we are all originalists now." For this reason, he is often described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century.[8]

Ommaviy madaniyatda

Derrick Wang’s opera Skaliya / Ginsburg depicts the friendship of Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both known for their shared love of opera.[190][191][192][193] The opera was introduced before Scalia and Ginsburg at the Supreme Court in 2013,[194] premyerasi Kastlton festivali 2015 yilda,[195][196] and was revised after Scalia’s death,[197] with the revised version broadcast on national radio on November 7, 2020.[198][199] Scalia and Ginsburg both wrote forewords to the libretto,[200] and Ginsburg cited the opera in her statement on Scalia's death[201] and in her foreword to the book Skaliya gapiradi.[202]

John Strand's play Originalist was performed in Washington, DC in 2015; it received a positive review from The New York Times. The play depicted Justice Scalia's interaction with a (fictional) liberal court clerk and their mutual criticism and eventual support of each other. The play had a cross-country tour from Washington, D.C. to the Pasadena o'yin uyi.[203] The play was scheduled to air on PBS in 2017.[204]

Vafotidan keyingi o'lpon

According to NBC News, tributes to "larger-than-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia poured in [from] both sides of the political aisle" following his death.[205] All eight of Scalia's fellow justices released statements honoring him following his death. Justice Clarence Thomas said, "'Justice Scalia was a good man; a wonderful husband who loved his wife and his family; a man of strong faith; a towering intellect; a legal giant; and a dear, dear friend. In every case, he gave it his all to get the broad principles and the small details right. … It is hard to imagine the court without my friend. I will miss him beyond all measure'". Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the [Supreme] Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the "applesauce" and "argle bargle"—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion... It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.[206]

2016 yil may oyida, Jorj Meyson universiteti renamed its law school the "Antonin Skaliya yuridik fakulteti " after an anonymous donor pledged $20 million to the school, with an additional $10 million donated by the Charles Koch Foundation, contingent upon the name change in Scalia's honor.[207][208] The dedication ceremony occurred on October 6, 2016, and was attended by Supreme Court justices. At the ceremony, Justice Elena Kagan called Scalia "one of the most important Supreme Court justices ever, and also one of the greatest".[9]

2016 yil oktyabr oyida, Italiya - AQSh jamg'armasi posthumously awarded Scalia its America Award. The ceremony was conducted in front of the Italian parliament in Rome.[209]

2018 yilda Prezident Donald Tramp vafotidan keyin taqdirlandi Prezidentning Ozodlik medali to Scalia.[210][211]

Vorislik

Asosiy maqolalar: Merrick Garland Oliy sudiga nomzod va Nil Gorsuch Oliy sudiga nomzod

Scalia's death—only the second death of a serving justice in a span of sixty years[212]—left eight justices remaining on the Supreme Court, split 4–4 between fairly conservative and fairly liberal, during a Prezident saylovi yili.[213][214] Cases that were pending before the Court at Scalia's death were decided by the remaining eight members.[215] A 4–4 deadlock would result in the ruling of the lower court being upheld, but no precedent being set, and the justices would not publish written opinions on the merits of the case.[215][216]

In a 2012 interview, Scalia had said he would prefer Judge Frank H. Easterbrook ning Ettinchi tuman apellyatsiya sudi uning vorisi sifatida.[217] On March 16, 2016, President Barak Obama, a Democrat, nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi Kolumbiya okrugi okrugi uchun, to fill Scalia's seat,[218] but the Republican-controlled Senate declined to take any action on the nomination; the nomination expired with the end of the 114-Kongress 2017 yil 3-yanvar kuni.[219] On January 31, 2017, Republican President Donald Tramp announced the nomination of Judge Nil Gorsuch ning O'ninchi tuman apellyatsiya sudi to succeed Scalia.[220] Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2017.[221]

Books by Antonin Scalia

  • Scalia, Antonin (1997), Gutmann, Emi (tahr.), A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton N.J.: Prinston universiteti matbuoti, ISBN  0-691-00400-5
  • Skaliya, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2008), O'zingizning ishingizni qilish: sudyalarni ishontirish san'ati, St. Paul: Thomson West, ISBN  978-0-314-18471-9
  • Skaliya, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012), O'qish to'g'risidagi qonun: huquqiy matnlarning talqini, St. Paul: Thomson West, ISBN  978-0-314-27555-4
  • Skaliya, Antonin; Skaliya, Kristofer J.; Whelan, Edward (2017). Skaliya gapiradi: qonun, e'tiqod va yaxshi yashagan hayot haqidagi mulohazalar. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN  9780525573326.

Shuningdek qarang

Izohlar

  1. ^ Journalistic sources are divided as to whether Scalia died on the night of February 12, 2016 or on the morning of February 13, 2016.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ "Biography of Former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia". Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2017 yil 26 iyunda. Olingan 23 iyul, 2017.
  2. ^ a b Liptak, Adam (February 13, 2016), "Oliy sudda konservativ Uyg'onish davriga rahbarlik qilgan adolat Antonin Skaliya 79 yoshida vafot etdi", The New York Times, olingan 13 fevral, 2016
  3. ^ Hunt, Darren (February 13, 2016), Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies during hunting trip near Marfa, KVIA-TV, dan arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2016 yil 13 fevralda, olingan 13 fevral, 2016
  4. ^ Smith, David (February 13, 2016), "Antonin Scalia obituary: conservative supreme court justice dies aged 79", Guardian, olingan 14 fevral, 2016
  5. ^ Whitely, Jason (February 14, 2016). "Official: Scalia died of heart attack". USA Today. Olingan 14 fevral, 2016.
  6. ^ Bobic, Igor (February 14, 2016). "Antonin Scalia Died Of A Heart Attack: Report". Huffington Post. Olingan 14 fevral, 2016.
  7. ^ a b v d Straub, Lana; Moravec, Eva Rut; Xorvits, Sari; Markon, Jerry (February 14, 2016). "The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports". Washington Post. Olingan 14 fevral, 2016.
  8. ^ a b Rosen, Jeffrey (February 15, 2016). "What Made Antonin Scalia Great". Atlantika. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2019 yil 13 iyulda. Olingan 24 iyul, 2019.
  9. ^ a b de Vogue, Ariane (October 6, 2016). "Antonin Scalia law school dedicated in Virginia". CNN. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2020 yil 31 mayda. Olingan 7 oktyabr, 2016.
  10. ^ a b v Molotski, Irwin (June 18, 1986), "The Supreme Court: Man in the News; Judge with tenacity and charm: Antonin Scalia", The New York Times, olingan 12 yanvar, 2010
  11. ^ a b Biskupic 2009, 11-15 betlar
  12. ^ Talbot, Margaret (March 28, 2005), "Supreme confidence: The jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia", Nyu-Yorker, olingan 15 fevral, 2016
  13. ^ "Antonin Scalia Fast Facts". CNN. 2013 yil 8 mart.
  14. ^ Merfi 2014 yil, p. 10.
  15. ^ Barker, Kim (February 14, 2016). "In Queens, Antonin Scalia Took Pride in Melting Pot and Confrontation". The New York Times. Olingan 15 fevral, 2016.
  16. ^ Biskupic 2009, 17-19 betlar.
  17. ^ Biskupic 2009, p. 21.
  18. ^ Markus, Rut (June 22, 1986), "Scalia tenacious after staking out a position", Washington Post, olingan 12 yanvar, 2010
  19. ^ a b v d e f "Justice Scalia on the record", CBS, 2008 yil 24-avgust, arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2010 yil 4 yanvarda, olingan 13 yanvar, 2010
  20. ^ Wendell, Bryan (February 16, 2016). "Before he served on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia was a Boy Scout". Olingan 18-fevral, 2016.
  21. ^ Staab 2006, pp. 3.
  22. ^ Merfi 2014 yil, 22-27 betlar.
  23. ^ a b v "Skaliya Amesda gapiradi, tajovuzkor talabani qoralaydi", Garvard qonunlari bo'yicha rekord, 2006 yil 7-dekabr, arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2010 yil 10 aprelda, olingan 12 yanvar, 2010
  24. ^ a b v Tulki, Jon, Biographies of the Robes: Antonin Gregory Scalia, PBS, olingan 12 yanvar, 2010
  25. ^ Biskupic 2009, 37-38 betlar.
  26. ^ Biskupic 2009, p. 40.
  27. ^ Biskupic 2009, 49-53 betlar.
  28. ^ Biskupic 2009, 45-47 betlar.
  29. ^ Biskupic 2009, pp. 63, 374.
  30. ^ Staab 2006, 13-14 betlar.
  31. ^ a b Shipp, E. R. (July 26, 1986), "Scalia's Midwestern colleagues cite his love of debate, poker, and piano", The New York Times, olingan 13 yanvar, 2010
  32. ^ Staab 2006, p. 19.
  33. ^ Fine, Sean (2017 yil 13-yanvar). "The untold story of how a young Antonin Scalia's 'gift to Canada' shaped our spy services". Globe and Mail. Olingan 13 yanvar, 2017.
  34. ^ Biskupic 2009, 73-74-betlar.
  35. ^ Biskupic 2009, p. 80.
  36. ^ Teylor, Styuart (June 19, 1986), "Scalia's views, stylishly expressed, line up with Reagan's", The New York Times, olingan 13 yanvar, 2010
  37. ^ a b v Biskupic 2009, pp. 104–09. Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court the following year, but his nomination was rejected by the Senate.
  38. ^ Toobin 2008, p. 21.
  39. ^ Wallison, Peter (2004), "Of loyalty, leaks, and the White House staff", in Wallison, Peter (tahr.), Ronald Reagan: the power of conviction and the success of his Presidency, Basic Books, p. 151, ISBN  9780813390475.
  40. ^ Staab 2006, p. 24.
  41. ^ Biskupic, Joan (December 22, 2008), "Timing and luck crucial for seat on high court", USA Today, olingan 9-fevral, 2010
  42. ^ Biskupic 2009, pp. 100, 109–10.
  43. ^ "Scalia hearings muted", Miluoki jurnali, August 5, 1986
  44. ^ Biskupic 2009, p. 109.
  45. ^ Biskupic 2009, p. 121 2.
  46. ^ Ring 2004 yil, 44-45 betlar.
  47. ^ a b v Biskupic 2009, 136-38 betlar.
  48. ^ Staab 2006, 74-75 betlar.
  49. ^ Staab 2006, p. 76.
  50. ^ Staab 2006, 78-79 betlar.
  51. ^ Staab 2006, 80-82 betlar.
  52. ^ Biskupic 2009, 328-29 betlar.
  53. ^ Rossum 2006, 84-85-betlar.
  54. ^ a b "Judge 'rejects Guantanamo rights'", BBC yangiliklari, 2006 yil 27 mart, olingan 29 yanvar, 2010
  55. ^ "U.S. justices cast doubt on tribunal", The New York Times, 2006 yil 28 mart, olingan 27 yanvar, 2010
  56. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (June 30, 2006b), "The ruling on tribunals; the overview; Justices, 5–3, broadly reject Bush plan to try detainees", The New York Times, olingan 27 yanvar, 2010
  57. ^ Rossum 2006, 61-63 betlar.
  58. ^ Mazzone, Jason (December 13, 2010), "Virjiniya va Sebeliusga qarshi: Judge Hudson & Justice Scalia", Balkinization, arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2011 yil 7 yanvarda, olingan 14 dekabr, 2010
  59. ^ Campos, Paul (2012 yil 24-iyun). "Skalyaning qo'rqinchli fikrlashi". Salon.
  60. ^ Dorf, Maykl (2015 yil 20-may), Dormant tijorat moddasi "sud firibgarligi" emasmi?, Yustiya
  61. ^ Fridman, Richard D. (iyun 1991). "Dormancy doktrinasini azobdan chiqarib tashlash". Cardozo qonuni sharhi. Benjamin N. Kardozo huquqshunoslik maktabi. 12 (6): 1745–61. Michigan universiteti yuridik fakulteti stipendiyasi ombori orqali PDF.
  62. ^ Skaliya, Antonin, Merilend xazinasining nazoratchisi, ariza muallifi Brayan Vayn va boshq. (PDF), p. 33, Tijorat to'g'risidagi salbiy holatlarimiz bilan bog'liq asosiy muammo shundaki, Konstitutsiyada salbiy tijorat moddasi mavjud emas ... Tijoratning salbiy moddasi sud firibgarligi ekanligining eng aniq belgisi, Kongressning roziligi davlatlarga qonunlarni qabul qilishiga imkon beradigan mutlaqo mantiqsizdir. aks holda davlatlararo tijorat uchun yo'l qo'yib bo'lmaydigan yuklarni keltirib chiqaradi.
  63. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, 110-12 betlar.
  64. ^ Rejalashtirilgan ota-ona va Keysi, 505 AQSh 833, 979 (Skaliya, J., boshqacha fikrda), Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi, 1992 yil 29 iyun, arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2010 yil 7 yanvarda, olingan 13 yanvar, 2010 - FindLaw orqali
  65. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, 193-95-betlar.
  66. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. 108.
  67. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. 109.
  68. ^ Ring 2004 yil, 137-38 betlar.
  69. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, 202-03 betlar.
  70. ^ Tosh, Jefri (2007 yil 20-aprel), "Bizning e'tiqodga asoslangan odil sudlovimiz", Huffington Post
  71. ^ Biskupik 2009 yil, 203–04 betlar.
  72. ^ Ring 2004 yil, 87-88 betlar.
  73. ^ Ring 2004 yil, 56-57 betlar.
  74. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, 159-60 betlar.
  75. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. 194.
  76. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. 195.
  77. ^ "Bowers va Xardvikka qarshi".. Law.cornell.edu. Olingan 25 sentyabr, 2016.
  78. ^ Ring 2004 yil, 279-80 betlar.
  79. ^ Tushnet 2005 yil, 167-69 betlar.
  80. ^ Ring 2004 yil, 280-81 betlar.
  81. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 283. Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun hujjatlarida bunday band yo'q.
  82. ^ Tushnet 2005 yil, 170-72 betlar.
  83. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, 225-27 betlar.
  84. ^ "Vakil Frenk Scaliyani" gomofob "deb ataydi", ABC News, Associated Press, 2009 yil 23 mart, arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2009 yil 27 martda, olingan 18-fevral, 2010
  85. ^ Dovd, Mureen (2003 yil 29 iyun), "Nino's Opéra Bouffe", The New York Times, olingan 18-fevral, 2010
  86. ^ "Adolat Skaliyaning Majoritar Teokratiyasi", The New York Times, 2015 yil 2-dekabr
  87. ^ "Puerile Pozner". 2015 yil 3-dekabr.
  88. ^ "Poznerning Skaliyaga asossiz hujumi". Qonun va Ozodlik. 2015 yil 3-dekabr.
  89. ^ Segall, Erik. "Adolat skalasi haqida ko'proq ma'lumot: Ikki tanqidchiga javob".
  90. ^ "Zaif Posner / Segallga javob". 2015 yil 7-dekabr.
  91. ^ Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi (2013 yil 26-iyun). "Xollingsvort Perriga qarshi, 570 AQSh ___" (PDF). Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi.
  92. ^ a b Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Vindzor, Yo'q 12-307, 570 BIZ. ___ (2013 yil 26-iyun). 2013 yil 26-iyun kuni olingan.
  93. ^ Vindzor, Yo'q 12-307, 570 BIZ. ___ (2013) (Scalia, J., boshqacha slip op.)
  94. ^ Tim Griv (2013 yil 26-iyun). "Skaliya:" baland qo'l "Kennedi bizni inson irqining dushmanlari deb e'lon qildi'". Milliy jurnal. Olingan 26 iyun, 2013.
    Tim Griv (2013 yil 26-iyun). "DOMA-da Skaliyaning pufakchali fikri". Atlantika. Olingan 26 iyun, 2013.
  95. ^ Gershteyn, Josh (2013 yil 26-iyun). "DOMA qarorining to'lqinlanish effekti". Politico.com. Olingan 2 iyul, 2013.
  96. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, № 14-556, slip op. soat 2 da (AQSh 2015 yil 26-iyun) (Skaliya, J., boshqacha fikrda).
  97. ^ a b Obergefell, slip op. 4 da (Scalia, J., boshqacha fikrda).
  98. ^ Obergefell, slip op. 9, 8 n.22 da (Scalia, J., norozi).
  99. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. 144.
  100. ^ Brisbin, Richard (1998). Adolat Antonin Skaliya va konservativ tiklanish. JHU Press. p. 488. ISBN  9780801860942.
  101. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, 192-93 betlar.
  102. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. 148.
  103. ^ Toobin 2008 yil, p. 146.
  104. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, 182–84-betlar.
  105. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 354.
  106. ^ a b Rossum 2006 yil, 184–86-betlar.
  107. ^ Skaliyaga Adliya Tomas, Sauter, Breyer va Ginsburg qo'shildi.
  108. ^ Kyllo va Qo'shma Shtatlar, 533 AQSh 27, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi, 2001 yil 11 iyun, olingan 24 yanvar, 2010 - FindLaw orqali
  109. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, p. 175.
  110. ^ Tushnet 2005 yil, 140-42 betlar.
  111. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, p. 2018-04-02 121 2.
  112. ^ a b v Biskupic 2009 yil, 135-36 betlar.
  113. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, 347-51 betlar.
  114. ^ Pozner, Richard (27.08.2008), "Bo'shashishni himoya qilish uchun", Yangi respublika, olingan 13 fevral, 2014
  115. ^ McArdle, Elaine (2008 yil 3 oktyabr), Dastlabki Vaughan ma'ruzasida Scalia "originalizm metodologiyasini" himoya qiladi, Garvard yuridik fakulteti, arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2010 yil 29 yanvarda, olingan 14 yanvar, 2010
  116. ^ "Skaliya kichik yigitlarni suddan qanday qilib chetlab o'tdi". 2016 yil 16 fevral - www.bloomberg.com orqali.
  117. ^ Pol Barret, "Katta yigitlar uchun adolat" Bloomberg News Weekly, 2016 yil 15-fevral, p. 13.
  118. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 243.
  119. ^ Yozuvda adolat Scalia, CBS News, 2007 yil 14 sentyabr, arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2010 yil 5 fevralda, olingan 31 yanvar, 2010
  120. ^ "Adolatli Antonin Skaliya bilan suhbat", Charli Rose, 2008 yil 20-iyun, arxivlangan asl nusxasi (video) 2009 yil 5-iyulda, olingan 31 yanvar, 2010
  121. ^ a b v Biskupic 2009 yil, 304-05 betlar.
  122. ^ Liptak, Odam (2005 yil 31-dekabr), "Shunday qilib, yigit barga boradi va Skaliya aytadi ...", The New York Times, olingan 30 yanvar, 2010
  123. ^ a b Biskupic 2009 yil, 307-08 betlar.
  124. ^ Litvik, Dahliya (2003 yil 15-yanvar), "Skaliya to'pni cho'chqaga tortmoqda, Slate, olingan 8 sentyabr, 2011
  125. ^ a b v Staab 2006 yil, p. 27.
  126. ^ Ring 2004 yil, p. xi.
  127. ^ Klark, Konor (2006 yil 5-iyul), "Skaliya qanday qilib mojodan mahrum bo'ldi", Slate, olingan 30 yanvar, 2010
  128. ^ Tushnet 2005 yil, 64-65-betlar.
  129. ^ Biskupik 2009 yil, p. 132.
  130. ^ Uord, Artemus (2007 yil fevral). "Kitoblarni ko'rib chiqish: Antonin Skaliyaning Adliya siyosiy fikri: Oliy sudning hamiltoniyalik vakili Jeyms B. Stabb tomonidan ". Qonun va siyosat kitoblarini ko'rib chiqish. Amerika siyosiy fanlar assotsiatsiyasi. 17 (2): 96–100.
  131. ^ a b Katta yoshli, Jennifer (2013 yil 14-oktabr), "Suhbatda: Antonin Skaliya", Nyu York, p. 26
  132. ^ Rossum, Ralf, Adolat Skalining matnshunoslik huquqshunosligi, Claremont McKenna kolleji, arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2010 yil 25 yanvarda, olingan 14 yanvar, 2010
  133. ^ Tompson va Oklaxoma, 487 AQSh 815, 865 (Skaliya, J., boshqacha fikrda), Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi, 1988 yil 29 iyun, olingan 13 yanvar, 2010 - orqali FindLaw
  134. ^ Issiqxona, Linda (1990 yil 31-may), "Vashington munozarasi: Oliy sud hanuzgacha sud tartibini belgilashga intilmoqda, The New York Times, olingan 12 fevral, 2010
  135. ^ Talbot, Margaret (2005 yil 28 mart), "Oliy ishonch: Antonin Skaliyaning sud amaliyoti", Nyu-Yorker, olingan 12 fevral, 2010
  136. ^ O'qish to'g'risidagi qonun: huquqiy matnlarning talqini 87-88 betlar
  137. ^ Issiqxona, Linda (6 iyun 2006a), "Sud musobaqani maktab rollari uchun omil sifatida baholaydi", The New York Times, olingan 13 yanvar, 2010
  138. ^ a b Rossum 2006 yil, p. 44.
  139. ^ Rossum 2006 yil, p. 198.
  140. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 275.
  141. ^ Alana Abramson. "Prezident Tramp yangi Oliy sud sudyasini nomladi". Vaqt. 2018 yil 10-iyul. [1].
  142. ^ Brayan Bennet. "Trampning adolati". Mavzu. 2018 yil 23-iyul, p. 22. [2].
  143. ^ Liptak, Odam (2009 yil 9-noyabr), "Yon panel: 19-asr nuqtai nazaridan, degregatsiya - bu sinov", The New York Times, olingan 12 fevral, 2010
  144. ^ Nader, Ralf; Vaysman, Robert (2008 yil 13-noyabr), Tahririyatga xat: Ralf Nader Skalining "o'ziga xosligi" haqida, Garvard qonunlari bo'yicha rekord, olingan 29 aprel, 2014
  145. ^ Citizens United Federal saylov komissiyasiga qarshi (Skaliya, J., o'zaro kelishib), Qo'shma Shtatlar Oliy sudi, 2010 yil 21 yanvar, arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2010 yil 27 yanvarda, olingan 27 yanvar, 2010 - FindLaw orqali
  146. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 208.
  147. ^ Biskupik 2009 yil, p. 363.
  148. ^ Goldberg, JJ (2009 yil 23 oktyabr), "Antonin Skaliyaning nohaqlik dini", Yahudiylarning kundalik hujumchisi, olingan 12 fevral, 2010
  149. ^ "Kitob sahifasi - taqilgan". Penguen tasodifiy uyi O'rta ta'lim.
  150. ^ a b Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 276.
  151. ^ a b Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 362.
  152. ^ Issiqxona, Linda (2003 yil 14 oktyabr), "Adolatparvarlik garovi bilan Xudoga murojaat qilgani uchun sudyalar ish olib boradilar", The New York Times, olingan 29 yanvar, 2010
  153. ^ Janofskiy, Maykl (2004 yil 19 mart), "Skaliya o'zini Cheyni ishidan olishdan bosh tortdi", The New York Times, olingan 29 yanvar, 2010
  154. ^ Issiqxona, Linda (2004 yil 25 iyun), "Sudyalarning qarori Cheyni ishini hal qilishni keyinga qoldirdi", The New York Times, olingan 29 yanvar, 2010
  155. ^ "Skaliya Cheyni ishiga aloqadorligini himoya qiladi". Washington Post. AP. 2006 yil 13 aprel.
  156. ^ Katta yoshli, Jennifer (2013 yil 6-oktabr). "Suhbatda: Antonin Skaliya". NYMag.com.
  157. ^ a b Sinnot-Armstrong, Valter (2002). "Rad etish va Bush Gorga qarshi". (PDF). Huquq va falsafa. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 21 (2): 221. ISSN  1573-0522. Olingan 14 iyul, 2019.
  158. ^ Sinnot-Armstrong, Valter (2002). "Rad etish va Bush Gorga qarshi". (PDF). Huquq va falsafa. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 21 (2): 201, 238. ISSN  1573-0522. Olingan 14 iyul, 2019.
  159. ^ Biskupik 2009 yil, p. 185.
  160. ^ Kollinz, Keti (2010 yil 27 oktyabr). "Parish profili: Buyuk sharshara Sena shahridagi avliyo Ketrin". Arlington katolik Herald. Olingan 5-yanvar, 2016.
  161. ^ Gavill, Adrian (2002 yil 18-noyabr). "Dushanba o'lik tomchilar uchun". Sovuqda qolib ketgan ayg'oqchi: Federal qidiruv byurosining ikki kishilik agenti Robert Xanssenning yashirin hayoti. Makmillan. p. 120. ISBN  9780312986292 - Google Books orqali.
  162. ^ Slevin, Jeremi (2013 yil 11 sentyabr). "Elizabeth Uorren" korporativ tarafdor "Supremes" ni tanqid qildi. HOZIR Aleks Vagner bilan. MSNBC. Olingan 18-noyabr, 2013.
  163. ^ Brend, Madeline (2006 yil 30 mart). "Adolat Skalining iyak ostidagi ishorasi". Rojer Axtell (mehmon). Milliy radio. Olingan 18-noyabr, 2013.
  164. ^ Patterson, tray (2006 yil 2-may). "Kechki ovqat teatri: Nega Stiven Kolbert D.C.da bomba portlatmagan." Slate. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2010 yil 23 oktyabrda.
  165. ^ "Stivenning Antonin Skaliga bergan hurmati". Stiven Kolbert bilan kech namoyish. 2016 yil 15 fevral. CBS.
  166. ^ Bohner, Jon. "Antonin Skaliyani vitse-prezidentlikka nomzodini ko'rsatishga ishontirishga harakat qilgan vaqtim". Mustaqil jurnal. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2016 yil 18 fevralda. Olingan 16 fevral, 2016.
  167. ^ Driskoll, Shon F. (2016 yil 14-fevral). "Skaliya 1960 yilda Keypda uylangan". Cape Cod Times. Olingan 15 fevral, 2016.
  168. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, 30-31 betlar.
  169. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 361.
  170. ^ a b Melissa Chan. "Antonin Skaliya: Oliy sud adolatida katta bo'laman". Time.com.
  171. ^ "Senat Evgeniy Skaliyani mehnat kotibi lavozimiga tasdiqlaydi, Aleksey Akostaning o'rnini egallaydi, u Etshteynning da'vo kelishuvidan norozilik ostida iste'foga chiqqan". Washington Post. 2019 yil 26 sentyabr. Olingan 26 sentyabr, 2019.
  172. ^ "Senat Evgeniy Skaliyani mehnat kotibi lavozimiga tasdiqladi". The Wall Street Journal. 2019 yil 26 sentyabr.
  173. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 211.
  174. ^ Biskupic 2009 yil, p. 88.
  175. ^ Sharhlovchi, Devid Akselrod, CNN katta siyosiy. "Devid Akselrod: Adolat Skalidan kutilmagan so'rov". CNN.
  176. ^ Shvarts, Allan B. (8 mart, 2019). "Tibbiyot sirlari: Oliy sud odil sudining o'limining oldini olish mumkinmi?". Filadelfiya tergovchisi.
  177. ^
  178. ^ Abramson, Ben; Bekon, Jon (2016 yil 14-fevral). "Cibolo Creek Ranch: yovvoyi hayot, filmlar to'plamlari, hashamat". USA Today. Olingan 14 fevral, 2016.
  179. ^ Berman, Mark; Markon, Jerri (2016 yil 17-fevral), "Nima uchun Adolat Skalisi Texasdagi kurortda bepul turar edi", Washington Post, olingan 20 sentyabr, 2019
  180. ^ "Adliya Antonin Skaliyaning o'limi to'g'risida Presidio okrugi sherifining hisoboti". 2016 yil 23-fevral. Olingan 20 sentyabr, 2019.
  181. ^ "Texas sudyasi Skalining sog'lig'i haqida tafsilotlarni oshkor qildi". Katta hikoya. 2016 yil 15-fevral.
  182. ^ Maykl, Tom (2016 yil 14-fevral). "G'arbiy Texasda Antonin Skaliyani o'lganini e'lon qilish bo'yicha sud jarayoni". Milliy radio. Olingan 20 sentyabr, 2019.
  183. ^ Xananel, Sem; Uorren, Devid (2016 yil 15 fevral). "Texas sudyasi Skalining sog'lig'i haqida batafsil ma'lumotni oshkor qildi". Associated Press. Olingan 20 sentyabr, 2019.
  184. ^ Uorren, Brayan (2016 yil 23 fevral). "Skalida ko'plab sog'liq muammolari bo'lgan". Associated Press. Olingan 20 sentyabr, 2019.
  185. ^ Hennessi-Fiske, Molli (2016 yil 14-fevral). "Skaliyaning Texas shtatidagi so'nggi lahzalari - bedana ovini" mukammal joyda "topish'". Los Anjeles Tayms. Olingan 20 sentyabr, 2019.
  186. ^ Chappell, Bill (2016 yil 19-fevral). "Antonin Skaliya motam egalari Oliy sudda hurmat bajo keltirgan bir paytda yolg'on gapirishmoqda". Milliy jamoat radiosi. Olingan 25 sentyabr, 2020.
  187. ^ a b Felps, Jordin (2016 yil 20-fevral). "Minglab odamlar Oliy sudning kechki sudyasi Antonin Skalyaning dafn marosimida qatnashmoqdalar". ABC News. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2016 yil 28 mayda. Olingan 24 may, 2016.
  188. ^ "Obama, sudyalar Skaliyani hurmat qilishadi". 2016 yil 20 fevral - www.reuters.com orqali.
  189. ^ "O'qish to'g'risidagi qonun: Adolat Skalining boshqa merosi | Amerikalik tomoshabin | Siyosat jiddiy qabul qilinishi juda muhim". Amerikalik tomoshabin.
  190. ^ Rubenshteyn, Devid (2020 yil 17-iyul). "Adolat Ginsburg" Scalia / Ginsburg "operasini tushuntirib berdi". YouTube.
  191. ^ Edgers, Geoff (2015 yil 8-iyul). "G'azabli ariya" dan "yoqimli duet" ga qadar opera sud oldida adolat qiladi, deydi Ginsburg ". Vashington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Olingan 15 oktyabr, 2020.
  192. ^ Doxoni, Erin. "OperaDelaware" Juri tomonidan sud jarayoni "va" Scalia / Ginsburg'". www.broadstreetreview.com. Olingan 15 oktyabr, 2020.
  193. ^ Apel, Syuzan B. (2018 yil 2-oktabr). "Opera oldindan ko'rib chiqish:" Scalia / Ginsburg' - siyosiy bo'shliqni qazib olish (va majburlash) ". San'at sug'urtasi. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2020 yil 4 yanvarda. Olingan 1 aprel, 2019.
  194. ^ "Scalia V. Ginsburg: Oliy sud sparringi, musiqaga qo'shiling". NPR.org. Olingan 1-noyabr, 2020.
  195. ^ Xeyli, Emili. "'Scalia / Ginsburg operasi yuridik dunyoning VIP-larini tortadi ". Vashington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Olingan 1-noyabr, 2020.
  196. ^ Gallagher, Nikolay M. (2015 yil 6-avgust). "Opera Dicta". Amerika qiziqishi. Olingan 1-noyabr, 2020.
  197. ^ "Qonunni tuzish: Skaliya / Ginsburg operasi yaratuvchisi Derrik Vang bilan intervyu". www.americanbar.org. Olingan 1-noyabr, 2020.
  198. ^ "OD Radio eshittirishlari | Juri tomonidan sud jarayoni va Scalia / Ginsburg". OperaDelaware. Olingan 1-noyabr, 2020.
  199. ^ Dobrin, Piter (2020 yil 22-sentyabr). "Filadelfiya opera jamoasi Rut Bader Ginsburgga bo'lgan muhabbatini kuchaytiradi". Filadelfiya tergovchisi. Olingan 15 oktyabr, 2020.
  200. ^ Skaliya, Antonin; Ginsburg, Rut Bader (2015). "Skaliya / Ginsburgga kirish so'zlari: Operatsion mutanosibliklarga yumshoq (muloyim) parodiya". Kolumbiya huquq va san'at jurnali. 38 (2): 237–237. doi:10.7916 / jla.v38i2.2118. ISSN  2161-9271.
  201. ^ "Adolat Ginsburgning Skaliyaga bergan ehtiromini o'qing:" Biz eng zo'r do'stlar edik'". NBC News. Olingan 1-noyabr, 2020.
  202. ^ Scalia, Antonin (2017). Skaliya gapiradi: qonun, e'tiqod va yaxshi yashagan hayot haqidagi mulohazalar. Skaliya, Kristofer J.; Uilan, Edvard (1-nashr). Nyu-York: Crown Publishing Group. x – xi pp. ISBN  978-0-525-57332-6. OCLC  993996596.
  203. ^ Adam Liptak. "Originalist, yangi spektakl. "Nyu-York Tayms, 2015 yil 11 mart. [3].
  204. ^ Rayan McPhee. Playbill haqida e'lon. "Arena Stage's Originalist Will PBS-ning teatri yaqinida ". 2017 yil 6-mart. [4].
  205. ^ "Xizmatlar adolat skalasi uchun yo'lakning ikkala tomonidan kelib chiqadi". NBC News.
  206. ^ izoh, 2016 / A qoldiring (2016 yil 16-fevral). "Skaliya hamkasblaridan 8 ta o'lpon". Daily Signal.
  207. ^ Svrluga, Syuzan (2016 yil 31 mart). "Jorj Meyson huquqshunoslik maktabi Antonin Skaliy nomidagi yuridik maktabi deb o'zgartiriladi". Washington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Olingan 1 aprel, 2016.
  208. ^ Svrluga, Syuzan (2016 yil 17-may). "Bu rasmiy: Jorj Meysonning yuridik maktabi Antonin Skaliya sharafiga nomlangan". Washington Post. Olingan 7 oktyabr, 2016.
  209. ^ "Premio America - Edizione 2016". Italiya-AQSh jamg'armasi. 2016 yil 6 oktyabr.
  210. ^ Strakualursi, Veronika (10.11.2018). "Tramp Elvisga," Babay Rutga va boshqalar qatoriga "Ozodlik medalini topshirdi". CNN. Olingan 11-noyabr, 2018.
  211. ^ "'Juda band ': Tramp Skaliyaning bevasi haqida "Ozodlik medali" tadbirida 9 farzandli bo'lganligi uchun hazillashdi ". NBC News.
  212. ^ Gresko, Jessica (2016 yil 14-fevral). "Skaliyaning lavozimidagi o'limi zamonaviy Oliy sud uchun kamdan-kam uchraydi". Associated Press. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2016 yil 16 fevralda. Olingan 15 fevral, 2016.
  213. ^ "Skaliyaning o'limi yuqori sud muvozanatini o'zgartiradi va saylovga katta muammo tug'diradi". Los Anjeles Tayms. Olingan 14 fevral, 2016.
  214. ^ Chon, Gina (2016 yil 14-fevral), "Antonin Skaliyaning o'limi AQSh rahbariyatiga qarshi.", Reuters, olingan 14 fevral, 2016
  215. ^ a b Goldstein, Tom (2016 yil 13-fevral). "Ushbu Termning yaqin ishlarida nima bo'ladi? (Yangilangan)". SCOTUSblog. Olingan 18-fevral, 2016.
  216. ^ Farias, Kristian (2016 yil 14-fevral). "Adolat Skaliyasi millatni o'zgartirishi mumkin bo'lgan hal qilinmagan yuqori darajadagi ishlarni qoldirdi". Huffington Post. Olingan 18-fevral, 2016.
  217. ^ "Skaliya bir marta o'z vorisiga nom berishni taklif qilgan". C-SPAN. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2016 yil 24 fevralda. Olingan 19 fevral, 2016.
  218. ^ Shir, Maykl D .; Xarris, Gardiner (2016 yil 16 mart). "Obama Merrick Garlandni Oliy sudga sayladi". The New York Times. Olingan 16 mart, 2016.
  219. ^ Bravin, Jess (2017 yil 3-yanvar). "Prezident Obamaning Merrick Garland nomzodi bo'yicha Oliy sudiga nomzod ko'rsatish muddati tugaydi". The Wall Street Journal. Olingan 3 yanvar, 2017.
  220. ^ Xirshfeld Devis, Juli; Landler, Mark (2017 yil 31-yanvar). "Tramp Nil Gorsuchni Oliy sudga taklif qildi". The New York Times. Olingan 31 yanvar, 2017.
  221. ^ Liptak, Odam; Flegengeymer, Mett (2017 yil 7-aprel). "Nil Gorsuch Senat tomonidan Oliy sud sudyasi ekanligini tasdiqladi". The New York Times. Olingan 8 aprel, 2017.

Adabiyotlar keltirilgan

Tashqi havolalar

Yuridik idoralar
Oldingi
Rojer S Kramton		 Kafedra Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining ma'muriy konferentsiyasi
1972–1974		Muvaffaqiyatli
Robert Entoni
Oldingi
Rojer S Kramton		 Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Bosh prokurorining yordamchisi uchun Yuridik maslahat xizmati
1974–1977		Muvaffaqiyatli
Jon Xarmon
Oldingi
Rojer Robb		 Sudyasi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi Kolumbiya okrugi okrugi uchun
1982–1986		Muvaffaqiyatli
Devid Sentelle
Oldingi
Uilyam Renxist		 Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi sudyasi
1986–2016		Muvaffaqiyatli
Nil Gorsuch
 
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi
The Rekvist Sud
Bosh sudya: Uilyam Renxist (1986–2005)
1986–1987:
1988–1990:
1990–1991:
1991–1993:
1993–1994:
1994–2005:
The Roberts Sud
Bosh sudya: Jon Roberts (2005–2016)
2005–2006:
2006–2009:
2009–2010:
2010–2016: