A: He was a friend of the Constitution, which, as former Solicitor General Paul Clement writes, sometimes meant that defendants got his vote on key issues, including sentencing, search and seizure, and confrontation. Paul's USA Today op-ed is here.
On other issues, defendants didn't do so well. Justice Scalia's dissent in Dickerson and his concurrences in Glossip and Kansas v. Marsh are three superb examples. After reading them, there is simply nothing left of the views he takes on.
It is noteworthy how explicit pro-criminal groups and advocates are in seeking a results-oriented replacement for the Justice. They don't even pretend to want outcomes faithful to law. They want outcomes favorable to defendants, law or no law. Then they lecture the rest of us on how high-minded they are.
Leave a comment