After all, a job is a job, no matter how well-paid or prestigious it is, and at some point you’re bound to have to worry about the clock.
This is why colleagues with a sense of humor are so important. Nothing ends a work day faster than sharing a laugh. For nearly 30 years, Supreme Court justices have had the privilege of laughing with one of our greatest judges. Justice Antonin Scalia.
Those of us who did not work with him can still enjoy the wit and courage displayed in his oral arguments and briefs. for example, This 1992 dissent On the constitutionality of prayer in schools:
I think it’s embarrassing enough that our country’s Establishment Clause case law “requires” holiday displays.[e] The targets of surveillance are generally associated with interior decorators rather than the judiciary. ” However, interior decoration is a very difficult science compared to psychology, which is practiced by amateurs.[r]”Psychological research” that is not particularly relevant to the precise issue here cannot hide the fact that courts are beyond the realm of judges knowing what they are doing. The court’s argument that state officials “forced” the students to participate in the trial The prayers and benedictions at the graduation ceremony, which I won’t go into too much detail, are disjointed.
or This 2001 objectionPGA Tour Inc. From the match against Martin:
But if we assume that the PGA Tour has a legal obligation to play classic platonic golf, and if we assume that all the other wrong steps the courts have taken to get to this point are correct; We as judges have to confront what is at stake. It’s a really great responsibility. This was made a solemn duty of the United States Supreme Court, imposed by Congress pursuant to the authority of the federal government. ”[t]to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and between the several nations,” decided to determine what golf was. I believe the framers of the Constitution were aware that King James II of Scotland’s 1457 Edict prohibited golf on the grounds that it interfered with the practice. Archery fully anticipates that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, law and relevance will cross again and the judges of this August court will one day have to grapple with that age-old jurisprudential question. was. They have studied law for many years, so they are well prepared. Does anyone else ride the golf course from shot to shot? Really golfer? The answer is yes. The court ultimately concluded that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf, and this will now be the law of the land.
“I attack ideas,” Scalia once said. “I don’t attack people. And some very good people have very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you need to find another day job.” No need.”
Scalia’s long and close friendship with the far more liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg confirmed this. Scalia’s cheerfulness, humor, and humility as she carried out her most important task should be a lesson to all of us.
