Skip to footer

Justice Scalia says he and Roberts aren't feuding

In an interview with CNN Justice Scalia put to rest rumors that he and Chief Justice Roberts clashed over the healthcare decision.

|
Jessica Hill/AP/File
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. Scalia recently told CNN that though he and Chief Justice John Roberts don't always see eye to eye in matters of the law, they generally get along.
  • By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press

| Washington

Justice Antonin Scalia says he hasn't had a "falling out" with Chief Justice John Roberts over the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 decision validating much of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

In an interview to be aired Wednesday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," the justice said despite reports that he and Roberts had clashed, there is not a personal feud going on between the court's two leading conservatives.

"There are clashes on legal questions but not personally," Scalia said of the court.

The Supreme Court earlier this month upheld much of Obama's signature health care law, with Roberts siding with the court's liberals to uphold the hotly debated core requirement that nearly every American have health insurance. The decision allowed the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

Since then, Roberts has been the focus of derision from some of the nation's leading conservatives, and there have been reports of fractures in the relationships on the court's conservative wing, of which Roberts and Scalia are members.

"No, I haven't had a falling out with Justice Roberts," Scalia said, when asked about a purported clash between him and Roberts.

"Loud words exchanged, slamming of doors?" prompted Morgan.

"No, no, nothing like that," Scalia said.

Scalia also defended the court's 2-year-old decision in Citizens United to give corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

"I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better," said Scalia, when asked about so-called super PAC spending on national elections. "That's what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from."

Scalia also said in the interview that the case that brings about the "most waves of disagreement" is still the decision that decided the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. But the justice said his normal answer to people who ask about Bush v. Gore is "get over it."

Scalia said it was Gore who decided to bring the courts into the battle. "The only question in Bush v. Gore was whether the presidency would be decided by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court," Scalia said. "It was the only question and it's not a hard one."

Scalia said he had no regrets about the court's decision.

"No regrets at all," the justice said. "Especially because it's clear that the thing would have ended up the same way anyway. The press did extensive research into what would have happened if (what) Al Gore wanted done had been done, county by county, and he would have lost anyway."

Scalia is beginning a book tour touting his new book, "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts" with co-author Bryan A. Garner.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Justice Scalia says he and Roberts aren't feuding
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0718/Justice-Scalia-says-he-and-Roberts-aren-t-feuding
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe