Scalia: Supreme Court disagreements not personal

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is interviewed by The Associated Press, Thursday, July 26, 2012, at the Supreme Court in Washington. / AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari

(AP) WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is downplaying reports of discord among the justices following last month's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Scalia said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday that he and his colleagues disagree over cases all the time "without taking it personally."

The justice refused to discuss recent reports from CBS News that Chief Justice John Roberts changed his vote in the health care case and provoked hard feelings among his fellow conservatives who thought Roberts would side with them to strike down the law.

Supreme Court upholds health care mandate
Justice Antonin Scalia: No "falling out" with Chief Justice John Roberts
Poll: John Roberts more popular among liberals than conservatives

"I was out of the country for who struck whom. It's terrible stuff. I'm not going to play any part in the recounting of it," Scalia said during a 40-minute interview in a private sitting room at the court.

President Ronald Reagan named the 76-year-old Scalia to the high court in 1986, making him the longest-serving justice.

Scalia: Cameras in the court will "miseducate" people

Scalia is giving a round of media interviews to promote the new book "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts" that he co-authored with legal scholar Bryan Garner.

He went on to say that disagreement over the tough legal issues the court must decide is a part of the job. "I disagree with my colleagues now and then. It happens all the time. If you can't do that without taking it personally and getting sore and picking up your ball and going home, you ought to find another job."

Scalia said he's confident that his eight colleagues share his view. "The press likes to paint the court as, the usual image is nine scorpions in a bottle. And that's not true at all. I consider all of my colleagues friends and as far as I know, that's how they feel about one another."

The differences emerge in dissenting opinions, which can be harsh. Among the court's better writers, Scalia has sometimes used his dissenting opinions to savage his colleagues on the other side of the issue. He once derided Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's views in an abortion case as "not to be taken seriously."

Indeed, Scalia's closest friend on the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, often opposes him in decisions, but they frequently socialize outside the court.

While he would not address Roberts' reported switch, Scalia acknowledged that he himself had once been assigned to write a majority opinion for the court in a case years ago and then changed his mind. A majority "eventually went along with that revised view," he said.

In the course of the interview, Scalia also defended aggressive questioning during argument sessions. Justice Clarence Thomas, who hasn't asked a question in more than six years, has complained that justices sometimes badger lawyers who appear before them.

"It shouldn't be hectoring," Scalia said. "I hope I have not hectored. If I have, I regret it."

But, he said, "I don't want to listen for a half-hour to stuff I've already read and underlined and commented on in the margins. That's utterly useless."

Lawyers who can resolve justices' nagging questions about a case "can win the day," he said. Arguments rarely cause him to change his views about a case, but they can help him make up his mind when he goes into an argument "and you're on knife's edge," Scalia said.

Scalia's new book, his second with Garner attempts to collect in one place Scalia's well-known views that judges should rely on the text of laws and how that language was understood by the people who wrote the laws. The authors set out 70 rules for determining what a law means and reject what they call "judicial speculation" about the spirit of a law.

They spent more than three years writing and revising its 567 pages, a process Scalia said caused him to spend vacations at his beach house at a desk instead of outside.

The justice cautioned not to look at the book as a farewell to the law or his legal career. He plans to be on the bench for a while still.

[tmittelstaed]

"...Arguments rarely cause him to change his views about a case..."

That right there is why Scalia should be impeached. What is the point of arguing anything at all in front of this turky gobbler when he's already made up his mind before even listening to the arguments?

[realityclear]

I would love to see The Supreme Court cut off gay marriage at the knees, but leaving DOMA in place. I would like not to witness the destruction of our country, because some believe something is so right , when it is so obviously wrong. Where was this issue 20 years ago? It's the self entitled that demand this, but it's just the kind of experiment that will ruin our society as we know it. Many will do what ever it takes to make this happen. They act like it's already in place. Don't make this The Supreme Court's legacy. It will create so many kinds of hell.

[stevex47]

I rarely agree with Scalia, but my respect for him has grown immensely as of late.

[quotelawrence]

they have all made to much money from the federal umbilical cord of tax dollars, and the idea that a Judge does not side with his superiors is ridiculous, he would not be appointed if he did not have similar views, and agendas, we need to amend the constitution to never allow profiteering, over patriotism, and national security. currently profiteering has risen above all principles

[mysticpizza]

That is one of the problems in our country is that profits seem to be more important than changing things for the better.

[baileycccc]

If you need a reason why judges terms should be cap, this right winger would be it.

[mysticpizza]

But of course if there choice went your way ad_iudicium then they would be defending the constitution. They are educated about the constitution and people should get over that they held up the constitution by supporting the new healthcare law.

[norcalruss]

Why doesn't this fossil just retire? This is the 21st century and he is more like a product of the nineteenth century.

[realityclear]

Want to thank Justice Thomas for receipt of my first mail from US Behavioral Health Plan. So, this must relate to Obama Care. My health care was fine. I don't understand this paperwork. Here comes the health insurance confusion. This is one time I wish The Supreme Court was more political. Now for payback let's leave DOMA in place. Let's have another shocker.

[josephp5]

Did you read Scalia's rant after the Court overturned most of Arizona's anti-immigrant law? He actually cited South Carolina's pre-civil war refusal to recognize freed slaves as a precedent for states rights! I've heard news types talk about Scalia's great intellect, but I don't see it at all. From my viewpoint, the guy is nuts! Or more precisely, he is an angry old man that sees the world in a certain way, and nobody is going to change his mind. That's OK if it is your crazy uncle that you see only on Thanksgiving, but for a Supreme Court Justice it's a travesty.

[aintfakin]

scalia is a political hack....end of story

[J_Blow]

Very sad the Supreme court is dominated by right wing political appointees whose opinions can be determined on any cased based on their politics. All judges should be swing judges on any case.

[shurch4truth]

Hard to understand why he didn't go to the beach instead....