SCOTUS: Justices on both sides invoke Scalia in sentencing case

WASHINGTON — The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s writing turned up in dueling Supreme Court opinions Tuesday, a fitting tribute to the justice who co-authored an entire book on interpreting the law.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan both invoked the book Scalia wrote with Bryan Garner in 2012 in a case over a lengthy prison term for a man convicted of possessing child pornography. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is very sad to be honest. This would have truly been a case that would have highlighted Scalia’s true originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which would of course have rendered a decision in favor of our litigant. Many people only see the “conservative” with Scalia’s name, but he was consistent with the law and the Constitution for his entire career, whether is was conservative or liberal principals at stake. He would have most probably asked the pointed questions that would have riddled the State’s arguments with so many holes it would look like a cheese grater.

Hopefully we’ll get a 6-2, and at worst a 5-3 if Thomas decides to go with Alito’s reasoning, though that’s not a given. Roberts will probably go with the prevailing decision so he can issue the main opinion, keeping in mind he will have to wordsmith it in a way to defend his Smith v. Doe legacy.

This article states it was an “anti-child pornography law.” I seems therefore likely its goal was to punish more severely repeat child abusers. Without any other indicators than sentence structure, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the wording to include past adult victim crimes. It would be irresponsible to interpret syntax without factoring in the intent of the law, or to punish someone due to a vagueness of meaning. If this is how the Supreme Court reasons, I’m scared.

Just letting you know that my parole officer, agent Alhambra of the Chula Vista CDCR, told me I could not attend the Saturday meeting because other sex offenders might be present.

If your meeting was at the San Diego Law Library on Front Street, I could attend.

My parole ends June 17, 2016. Look forward to meeting you then.

Regards, Daniel Lantzy

So, if you are attending your weekly therapy meetings, you are NOT around other SOs on probation? Hhmmmh. Very hypocritical if you ask me.