As for the mostly bookish Supreme Court press corps, Scalia has excoriated us for an imagined tendency to reduce cases to conflicts between the "nice old lady" and the "scuzzy guy."

Ginsburg v. Scalia?

As to Scalia's recent media tour, it reminds me of precedents, like the Picket Fences precedent to the Boston Legal taking on the Supremes. Fred Friendly (IIRC / and others) used to moderate discussions with law types about constitutional issues that were aired on PBS stations and the like. Scalia took part in some of these discussions, even with the idea of some that judges shouldn't involve themselves with hypos outside of the court room.

He also put up his views of originalism and interpretation to criticism, his earlier book on his matter of interpretation having commentary from a historian, liberal lawyer and so forth, which he then responded to as well. This also is not exactly the same thing as being interviewed by a journalist (Rehnquist was interviewed by Brian Lamb of C-SPAN* in the promotion of his books, but not quite the same thing), but does show a willingness to put his views up to scrutiny.

[As to persuasion, Scalia appears so sure of himself that he figures that those who don't accept the obvious truth are boobs not really worth the effort. His friendship with Ginsburg suggests an ability to get past that on some level, but a "do what I say, not what I do" strategy should be part of the book Dahlia discusses here.]

His comments in public has received some rightful criticism, but I do commend him for at least voicing them openly. Cf. The secrecy of his pal Cheney and his bunch, secrecy that led to the promotion of various insidious legal doctrines.

-j

* It still amuses/amazes to think of some clips C-SPAN showed of past judicial nomination hearings, in honor of recent confirmations. One had Scalia smoking a pipe while answering his questions. Really. These days the likes of Eric Alterman calls Definitely, Maybe "cigarrette porn" for showing its main character smoking back in the early '90s and some groups want to make such films "R" rated.

Right you are, Joe! My introduction to discussions of Constitutional issues was via The Constitution: That Delicate Balance -- Justice Potter Stewart sitting with Mr. Friendly -- which I still watch periodocally on University of Maryland Television. [ hmmm, I just discovered that I can view on demand -- for free -- all of the epsidoes...] The series was also my intro to Justice Scalia -- I missed the confirmation battle... being a sailor overseas in an exocitc environ at the time my interests tended toward the libertine... but I digress...

On "persuasion"... I've always thought of "Uncle" Tony as the classical goombah -- always there to a take a wayward younger family member aside to frankly put the incorrectness of ways and draw a map toward what's right. Every time I see Scalia talk to a group of students my thinking here gets confirmation.

Of course, this behaviour is also evident in his work at the Court. Scalia certainly never has shied away from bluntly telling his colleauges "you are wrong" and giving what he believes the correct answer... I mostly disagree with his opinions, but always find them a good read, and often quite laughter producing. But, I've never found his opinions to be any kind of attempt to persuade.

I think such undiplomatic candor might be considered gaffes in any other context spoken by any other person...

By chance, I found a copy of the May 2008 ABA Journal at the train station, and it not only has an interview with the authors of the book, but excerpts it. One section tells one to "learn how to handle a difficult judge."

Well, he should know. The article was fairly interesting and for fans, has a lot of Scalia pics that make him look rather good for his age.

-j