(Fake) Scalia v. Posner, Round XX

January 3rd, 2014

This fictitious round in our never-ending brawl comes from the pseudonymous “constitutional law professor” named Screwtape who is now blogging at Huffington Post Comedy. This satire (which I find quite weak) illustrates a simulated conversation between Justice Scalia and Satan, with convenient links to things Scalia actually said or did. Here is a bit with Posner:

The Devil: Nice, talk to me about voting.

Scalia: Things moving well. After we gutted the Voting Right Act, some of our friends down south, if you know what I mean, got going passing laws making it harder for, you know, certain people to vote. These laws require hard to get photo ID’s, and they closed the polls during convenient times, all the good stuff.

The Devil: Great, you know how much I hate universal suffrage. Makes me see red.

Scalia: I know, that’s why I threw in that line at the oral argument about voting rights being “racial entitlements.”

The Devil: That was a beautiful touch. You guys are going to keep upholding voter ID laws right. I saw that Judge Posner said he might have been wrong the first time around.

Scalia: Don’t worry about Posner. He may be much smarter than I am but I get to review his decisions.

For some reason, the last line has no links. Scalia actually said the bit about reviewing his decisions during an interview on Fox News Sunday.

SCALIA: He is a court of the appeals judge, isn’t he?
SCALIA: He doesn’t sit in judgment of my opinions as far as I’m concerned.
WALLACE: You sit in judgment of his opinion?
SCALIA: That’s what happens.

And speaking of Fox News is effectively like appearing on HellTV 8 (The “Ocho“). Also, I’m sure the Devil would curse Scalia for all those pro-defendant decisions that keep people out of jail. But whatever, doesn’t fit the satire.

Relatedly, what’s with (presumably) tenured law professors writing (weak) satire under pseudonyms? We are blessed with one of the few professions in the world where we can (generally) speak our minds and are paid for it. There is nothing here that would get any law professor in trouble.