Judith Sheindlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judy Sheindlin

Sheindlin at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival

Judith Susan Blum
October 21, 1942 (age 73)
Born
Brooklyn, New York City, New York,
U.S.
Greenwich, Connecticut, U.S.
Residence
Naples, Florida, U.S.
Judge Judy
Other names
Judy
American University (B.A.)
Education
New York Law School (J.D.)
Lawyer, judge, television personality,
Occupation
author, arbitrator
Attorney:
19651996
Judge:
Years active
1982present
Television personality:
1996present
Known for Judge Judy (1996present)
Political
Nonpartisan[1]
party
Spouse(s) Ronald Levy (19641976)

(divorced)

Jerry Sheindlin (19771990; divorced,

remarried 1991present)

Website

Whatwouldjudysay.com

Judith Susan Blum-Sheindlin (born October 21, 1942), also known as Judith Sheindlin or
Judge Judy, is an American lawyer, former judge, television personality, producer, and author.
Since 1996, Sheindlin has presided over her own successful Daytime Emmy Award winning
reality courtroom series, Judge Judy.[2]
Sheindlin passed the New York bar examination in 1965 and became a prosecutor in the family
court system. In 1982 Mayor Ed Koch appointed her as a judge, first in criminal court, then later
as Manhattan's supervising family court judge in 1986.
It was reported in mid-2012 that Sheindlin was the highest paid television personality, making
$123,000 per episode of Judge Judy,[3] or $45 million annually for the 52 days per year that she
tapes her show.[4][5] In October 2013 it was reported that Sheindlin was still the highest paid TV
star, earning $47 million per year for Judge Judy.[6]
Sheindlin began presiding on Judge Judy in national syndication on September 16, 1996.[7] She is
the longest serving judge or arbitrator in courtroom-themed programming history, a distinction
that earned Sheindlin a place in the Guinness World Records.[8]

Contents

1 Early life and education

2 Legal career

3 TV court show: Judge Judy

o 3.1 Origins
o 3.2 Ratings and reception
o 3.3 Awards and honors
o 3.4 Salary
o 3.5 Longevity and retirement plans

4 Other media
o 4.1 Other entertainment industry work

o 4.2 Publications
o 4.3 Website

5 Other projects and community work

6 Lawsuits

7 Personal life

8 References

9 External links

Early life and education

Sheindlin was born Judith Susan Blum in the Brooklyn borough of New York City to Jewish
parents, Murray Blum, a dentist and the former Ethel Silverman. Her paternal grandfather, Jacob
Blum, immigrated from the Ukraine, while her paternal grandmother, Lena Mininberg, came
from Russia.[2] She described her father as "the greatest thing since sliced bread" and her mother
as "a meat and potatoes kind of gal."[9]
Sheindlin attended James Madison High School in Brooklyn before going on to American
University in Washington, D.C., where she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in
government. She finished her law school education at New York Law School, where she earned
her Juris Doctor in 1965.[10]

Legal career
Sheindlin passed the New York bar exam in 1965, the same year as her graduation, and was hired
as a corporate lawyer for a cosmetics firm.[2] Within two years she became dissatisfied with her
job and left to raise her two children. She was soon made aware of a position in the New York
court system as a prosecutor in the family courts.[2] In her role as a lawyer, Sheindlin prosecuted
child abuse cases, domestic violence and juvenile crime.[2]
By 1982, Sheindlin's no-nonsense[2] attitude inspired New York Mayor Ed Koch to appoint her as
a criminal court judge.[2] Four years later, she was promoted to supervising judge in the family
court's Manhattan division.[2] She earned a reputation as a "tough" judge (though she has
disagreed with the labels "tough" and "harsh"),[11] known for her fast decision-making and
acerbic wit.[9]
In February 1993, Sheindlin's outspoken reputation made her the subject of a Los Angeles Times
article,[12] profiling her as a woman determined to make the court system work for the common
good.[2] She subsequently was featured in a segment on CBS's 60 Minutes, bringing her national

recognition.[2] This led to her first book, Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining, published
in 1996. She retired as a family court judge that same year after hearing over 20,000 cases.[2]
After her retirement, Sheindlin continued to receive increasing amounts of public attention.[2]

TV court show: Judge Judy

Main article: Judge Judy

Judge Judy stands next to a portrait of herself (2005)

Origins
After the 60 Minutes special on her family court career in 1993 and authoring her first book
shortly thereafter (Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining), Sheindlin was approached
about starring in a new reality courtroom series, featuring "real cases with real rulings."[10] She
accepted the offer.
Sheindlin's ongoing syndicated court show, Judge Judy, debuted on September 16, 1996, and
began celebrating its 20th anniversary on Monday, September 14, 2015.[13] Sheindlin has stated
that her show's primary goal is to motivate the public to do the right thing, and to show that each
individual must take responsibility for his or her own actions.[11]

Ratings and reception

Judge Judy has maintained preeminence within its genre. Since its debut, it has remained the No.
1 rated court show[14] and regularly draws approximately 9 to 10 million viewers daily.[15] During
the 200910 television season, Judge Judy became the first TV series in nearly a decade to
attract more daytime viewers than The Oprah Winfrey Show.[16] Since then, it has been the highest
rated show in all of daytime television.[17]
On March 2, 2015, CBS Television Distribution and Judge Sheindlin extended their contract for
another three seasons, adding to her current contract (which was set to expire after the 201617
season), meaning it will be on the air until at least the 201920 season.[18] Judge Judy is
especially popular among female viewers between the ages of 25 and 54.[19]
Author Brendan I. Koerner has commented on the popularity of Judge Judy:

Court-show viewers don't seem to want moral conundrums or technical wrinkles. They love
Sheindlin's show because she offers them a fantasy of how they'd like the justice system to
operateswiftly, and without procedural mishaps or uppity lawyers. They get to see wrongdoers
publicly humiliated by a strong authority figure. There is no uncertainty after Sheindlin renders
her verdict and bounds off the bench, and there certainly are no lengthy appeals.[19]
A 2013 Reader's Digest poll supported Koerner's statements, revealing that Americans trusted
Judge Judy more than all 9 justices of the United States Supreme Court.[20]
The program has integrated itself into American pop culture.[10] In 2003, VH1 named Sheindlin
one of the "200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons."[21] References to Sheindlintypically as "Judge
Judy", though often satiricalhave appeared in multitudes of television programs and other
media, including ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live!;[20] FOX's The Simpsons as Judge Constance Harm
(voiced by Jane Kaczmarek); NBC's Will & Grace; UPN/The CW's America's Next Top Model;
NBC's The Weakest Link; ABC's The Practice and tapings of the Academy Awards; the book
America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction by Jon Stewart;[10] a skit by Vicki Lawrence
portraying Thelma Harper/Mama on "Betty White's 2nd Annual 90th Birthday" celebration,[22]
drag queen Bianca Del Rio portraying Judge Judy on RuPaul's Drag Race, etc.
To celebrate the premiere of the show's 18th season back in 2013, a flash mob consisting of
scores of people dressed in judge's robes took to the streets and created a Judge Judy music
video.[23][24] In addition, Sheindlin has been parodied on Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons, The
Amanda Show, etc.[25][26][27]

Awards and honors

Judge Judy has earned Sheindlin numerous awards and honors, including a star on the
Hollywood Walk of Fame in February 2006;[28] induction into Broadcasting & Cable's Hall of
Fame in October 2012;[29][30] being awarded vice presidency of the UCD Law Society in April
2013;[31] being presented with the Gracie Allen Tribute Award from the Alliance for Women in
Media;[21] being awarded the Mary Pickford Award by the Hollywood Chamber Community
Foundation at the 2014 Heroes of Hollywood;[32] etc.
One award Sheindlin had difficulty winning was a Daytime Emmy Award. By 2011, her program
had been nominated 14 consecutive years without winning.[33][34] In mid-2012, an article from the
New York Post reported that Judge Judy was snubbed by the award show by not even being
nominated that year despite being the highest-rated court show.[35] In an interview with
Entertainment Tonight on May 3, 2013, Sheindlin said, "I have my walls full of Daytime Emmy
Award nominations." When ET's interviewer asked Sheindlin if she thought she'd ever win the
award, she replied:
I don't know. You know, somehow it would sort of break the spell. The show has been such a
tremendous success that I'm almost afraid to think about winningbecause so many of those
shows that did win are no longer with us. So I say to myself 'you want the Emmy or you want a
job? (laughing) Which one do you want?'[36]

On June 14, 2013, Judge Judy won its first Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Legal/Courtroom
Program, having received its 15th nomination.[37] Sheindlin's status as longest serving judge or
arbitrator in courtroom-themed programming history rewarded her a place in the prestigious
Guinness World Records on September 14, 2015, as part of her court show's 20th anniversary
celebration.[8]

Salary
In 2005, Sheindlin's salary was US$15 million per year.[19] Her net worth at the beginning of
2007 was $95 million, and she ranked #13 on the Forbes top 20 richest women in entertainment.
[38]
In July 2010 when Sheindlin's contract was renewed, her salary increased to $45 million per
year. It was later reported in October 2013 that Sheindlin is the highest-paid TV star, earning $47
million per year for Judge Judy, which translates into just over $900,000 per workday (she works
52 days per year).[6]

Longevity and retirement plans

The only court shows that outnumber Judge Judy's seasons are The People's Court and Divorce
Courtboth of which have suffered cancellation(s) and gone through multiple judges or
arbitrators where Judge Judy has not. Thus, Judge Judy boasts the longest individual production
life of any court show. Moreover, Sheindlin is the longest serving judge or arbitrator in
courtroom-themed programming historya distinction that rewarded Sheindlin a place in the
Guinness World Records in September 2015 as part of the program's 20th anniversary season.
When asked why her court show has so much longevity while most other court shows do not, in
the May 3, 2013, Entertainment Tonight interview, Sheindlin answered:
I think people are comfortable knowing my perspectivebecause I think if you try as a
judge/television personality to do this kind of job and keep your perspectives, your personal
perspectives, a secret, you're not being honest. And I think that the American viewing audience
can tell when somebody's not being honestwhen somebody's peeing on their leg and telling
them it's raining. I think part of the reason I was selected to do this job was because I don't filter
myself very well. But I was never a great filter of myself even when I sat on the bench in New
York. Now sometimes that got you into a little bit of hot water; here they seem to like it.
Fortunately for me, I don't have to act. This is it. And if you annoy me, or if you lie to me, or if I
feel as if you're trying to obfuscate the truth, you're going to get on my bad side. And that's a side
that you don't want to be on.[36]
On March 30, 2011, Sheindlin was admitted to the hospital after she fainted on the set of her
show while handling a case. She was released the next day, and it was later learned that she
suffered a mini-stroke.[39] In regards to her retirement, Sheindlin has stated that it's up to her
viewers and when they tire of watching the program, which she believes will inevitably happen
one day. As of the present, however, Sheindlin has stated that fans still seem to be interested and
taking something out of the court show.[40] Sheindlin admits the court show is "seductive" and
hard to give up. Sheindlin said, "I'm not tired. I still feel engaged by what I do, and I still have
people who like to watch it."[14]

Other media
Other entertainment industry work
Since the success of Sheindlin's courtroom series, she's been interviewed on scores of talk shows
and cable news programs over the course of her career, such as Entertainment Tonight, The
Wendy Williams Show,[41] Katie (numerous appearances),[42] Larry King Live (numerous
appearances),[43] The View (numerous appearances),[44] Donny & Marie,[45] The Talk,[46] The
Tonight Show, Dateline NBC, 20/20, etc.[47] On October 17, 1998, Sheindlin made a surprise
guest appearance on Saturday Night Live, comedically interrupting one of Cheri Oteri's regular
parodies of her presiding on Judge Judy.[48] Also as a result of her Judge Judy show stardom, she
served as a judge for the 1999 Miss America Pageant.[41]
Early on in her celebrity on February 21, 2000, the Biography program aired a documentary film
on Sheindlin, "Judge Judy: Sitting in Judgment" (later released on home video). This 60-minute
documentary captured Sheindlin's entire life story (dating back to her childhood), legal career,
authoring career, entertainment career, etc. The special also featured input from those closest to
Sheindlin and those who knew her best.[49][50] More recently on December 23, 2008, Sheindlin
shared juicy revealing secrets about her life on Shatner's Raw Nerve, in which she was
presumptuously interviewed by William Shatner.[51] A year later in December 2009, Sheindlin
again told the story of her life, legal career, authoring career, and entertainment courtroom career
from an updated perspective in a two-hour interview for Archive of American Television.[52] In a
free-wheeling 60-minute interview conducted by Katie Couric on September 17, 2013, for the
92nd Street Y, Sheindlin elaborated on previously-undisclosed fun facts of her life story and long
career in the family court.[53][54]
As confirmed in January 2014, a new court show conceived by Sheindlin titled Hot Bench
debuted on September 15, 2014. The courtroom series features a panel of three judges debating
and deciding on cases brought to their TV courtroom. Stated Sheindlin, "When my husband Jerry
and I were in Ireland recently, we visited the courts and watched a three judge bench, which I
found both fascinating and compelling. I immediately thought what a terrific and unique idea for
a television program that brings the court genre to the next level. We have assembled three
individuals with extremely varied backgrounds to serve as the judges. They are smart and
talented, with terrific instincts and great chemistry, and are sure to create a hot bench." The panel
of judges consist of New York State Supreme Court judge Patricia DiMango, and Los Angeles
attorneys Tanya Acker and Larry Bakman. As with Judge Judy, Hot Bench is executive-produced
by Randy Douthit, and produced by CBS Television Distribution.[55][56] It's important to note that
Sheindlin originally desired the title of her personal courtroom series to be "Hot Bench" before
producers ultimately settled on "Judge Judy."[57][58][59]

Publications
Sheindlin has authored seven books. Her career as an author began prior to her courtroom series.
One of her more recent books, which hit shelves on April 25, 2013, was inspired by one of her
advisory catch phrases encouraging romantic partners to be judicious with regards to domestic
partnerships. This catch phrase is: There is no Court of People Just Living Together.[60] In

September 2014, Sheindlin celebrated the opening of her 19th season by giving out her latest
book, "What Would Judy Say: Be the Hero of Your Own Story," for free. Sheindlin's seven books
are as follows:

Sheindlin, Judith (1996). Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining. Harper Collins.
ISBN 0-06-092794-1.[10]

Sheindlin, Judith (1999). Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever. Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 006-092991-X.[10]

Sheindlin, Judith (2000). Keep It Simple, Stupid: You're Smarter Than You Look. Cliff
Street Books. ISBN 0-06-019546-0.[10]

Sheindlin, Judith (2000). Win or Lose by How You Choose. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06028780-2.[10]

Sheindlin, Judith (2001). You're Smarter Than You Look: Uncomplicating Relationships
in Complicated Times. Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 0-06-095376-4.[61]

Sheindlin, Judith (2013). What Would Judy Say? A Grown-Up Guide To Living Together
With Benefits. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 1-4839-3167-6.[60]

Sheindlin, Judith (2014). What Would Judy Say: Be the Hero of Your Own Story.

Website
Sheindlin launched an advice-sharing website,"Whatwouldjudysay.com," in May 2012.
According to Sheindlin, the goal of the new website is to share her personal ideas and outlooks
on life, have a forum to discuss a variety of different issues, and have a little fun.[62][63]

Other projects and community work

Sheindlin is the creator, director, and spokesperson for an alliance designed to nurture and
strengthen women, entitled "Her Honor Mentoring Program." The program's mission is to
provide a platform for young women to reach their full potential, strengthen their practical skills
in order to realize a life full of promise and reinforce the importance of college education and
ultimately gain a meaningful profession.
In early 2015, Sheindlin and her courtroom series put together a Facebook contest for her fans,
who sent letters explaining why their high school should be selected as the one at which
Sheindlin would deliver a graduation commencement speech. A letter by Alexus Uentillie of
Shiprock High School in Shiprock, New Mexico, was announced as the winner. Sheindlin's
graduation commencement speech was delivered in late May 2015 and was covered by
Entertainment Tonight as shown.

Lawsuits
Lawsuit filed by Patric Jones
In March 2013 a lawsuit was filed against Sheindlin by Patric Jones, the estranged wife of Judge
Judy executive producer Randy Douthit. Jones alleged Douthit and Sheindlin had conspired to
permit Sheindlin to buy Christofle fine china and Marley cutlery owned by Jones. She said
Sheindlin had paid Douthit $50,815 for the items without her knowledge to deprive her of her
valuables,[64] and she sought $514,421 from Sheindlin. The suit was settled out of court after
Sheindlin returned the tableware to Douthit and Jones agreed to pay him $12,500 and have the
tableware handed back to her.[65]
Lawsuit filed by Judith Sheindlin
On March 12, 2014, Sheindlin filed a lawsuit for the first time in her life. The suit was filed
against Hartford, Connecticut personal injury lawyer John Haymond and his law firm. In the
lawsuit, Sheindlin accused Haymond and his firm of using her television image without consent
in advertisements that falsely suggested she endorsed him and his firm. Sheindlin's producer
allegedly told the firm that use of her image is not permitted in March 2013, but ads continued.
The lawsuit filed in federal court sought more than $75,000 in damages. Sheindlin said in her
statement that any money she wins through the lawsuit will go toward college scholarships
through the Her Honor Mentoring Program. Sheindlin further stated, "Mr. Haymond is a lawyer
and should know better. The unauthorized use of my name is outrageous and requires legal
action."[66][67][68] Haymond later filed a countersuit for punitive damages and attorney's fees,
alleging defamation of him and his firm by Sheindlin.[69] Haymond insisted that local affiliates
asked him to appear in Judge Judy promos to promote Sheindlin for which he obliged.[70][71]
On August 8, 2014, it was reported that the case between Sheindlin and Haymond settled out of
court in a resolution that favored Sheindlin. Haymond will be donating money to Sheindlin's
charity, Her Honor Mentoring Program.[72]

Personal life

Judge Judith Sheindlin in 2005

In 1964, Sheindlin married Ronald Levy, who later became a prosecutor in juvenile court. They
moved to New York and had two children, Jamie and Adam,[2] but divorced in 1976 after 12
years of marriage.[2] Adam previously served as District Attorney in Putnam County, New York.
In 1977, she married Jerry Sheindlin, a judge who from 1999 to 2001 was an arbiter on The
People's Court.[2] They divorced in 1990, partially as a result of the stress and struggles that
Judith incurred after her father's death that same year,[2] but remarried the following year. She has
three step children with Sheindlin; Gregory, Jonathan and Nicole, as well as her own biological
children Jamie and Adam from her first marriage, and 12 grandchildren.[2] Jonathan is a retinal
surgeon[73] and Greg and Nicole are lawyers.
Sheindlin owns homes in several states, including Connecticut,[74] New York,[75] Florida,[76] and
Wyoming.[77] She commuted to Los Angeles every other week for two to four days to tape
episodes of Judge Judy.[14][75] However, in May 2013, she bought a $10.7 million condominium in
the Los Angeles suburb of Beverly Hills.[78]
Sheindlin holds honorary Doctor of Law degrees from Elizabethtown College and SUNY
Albany.[79]
Sheindlin is a supporter of same-sex marriage[44] and, although she has said that she is not a
supporter of "big government" she believes that the issue of same-sex marriage should be
handled at the federal level rather than by a state by state change.[80] She prefers not to be labelled
by political terms, and states that she is not registered with any political party. When asked of the
2012 presidential elections, Sheindlin stated that while she voted for President Barack Obama in
2008 (as well as voting for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton respectively in 1980 and 1984 and
1992 and 1996), she did not care for either candidate in the current race, and refused to reveal for
whom she would be voting.[81]

References
1.
"Judith Scheindlin". registration.elections.myflorida.com. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
"Judith (Judge Judy) Sheindlin Biography (1942)". Biography, A&E Television
Networks. Retrieved December 14, 2008.[dead link]
"Judge Judy Sheindlin Makes $123,000 A Day, Roughly $45M Salary And $110M Net
Worth For 70-Year-Old". International Business Times. Retrieved December 21, 2012.[dead link]
Hinckley, David (August 8, 2012). "Judge Judy rules! TV court jurist is the highest paid
television star NY Daily News". Daily News (New York). Retrieved November 22, 2015.
[1][dead link]
Lindsay Lowe (March 14, 2012). "Happy Birthday, Judge Judy! 5 Things You Didn't
Know About Judy Sheindlin". Parade.com. Retrieved October 24, 2013.
"Judge Judy Nationaly Syndicated". Judge Judy Bio. CBS Television Distribution; a
division of CBS Studios Inc. Retrieved 22 January 2016.
"Judge Judy Sets a Guinness World Record!". etonline. September 14, 2015. Retrieved
September 15, 2015.

 Weldon, Fay (October 9, 2008). "Judy, madly, deeply". The Guardian (London).
Retrieved December 14, 2008.
"Judge Judith Sheindlin: Presiding Judge". CBS Studios. Retrieved November 19, 2011.
"Judge Judy explains how she can tell someone is lying WDRB 41 Louisville News,
Weather, Sports Community". Wdrb.com. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
Getlin, Josh (February 14, 1993). "Law and Disorder". Los Angeles Times.
"CBS JUDGE JUDY 20TH ANNIVERSARY". Stun Creative. Retrieved August 18, 2015.
Huff, Richard (January 29, 2008). "Judge Judy will keep warming bench". The New York
Daily News. Retrieved December 23, 2008.
Leroux, Charles (December 24, 2008). "There's no justice like show justice". The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved December 24, 2008.
Highfill, Samantha. "'Judge Judy' renewed through 2015". Entertainment Weekly.
Retrieved May 5, 2013.
"Ratings "Judge Judy" Kicks Off 15th Season as the No. 1 Daytime Show in
Syndication". TheFutonCritic.com. September 16, 1996. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
"'Judge Judy' Extends Big Bucks Contract With CBS Through 2020" Variety, March 2,
2015
Koerner, Brendan I (May 27, 2005). "Judge Judy". Slate. Retrieved December 23, 2008.
Sullivan, Sean (February 24, 2011). "Jimmy Kimmel asks: Judge Judy for the Supreme
Court? (VIDEO)". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2013.
"Judge Judy Bio". Judgejudy.com. Retrieved May 19, 2013.
"Video Gallery | Movies & Specials | All Videos: Newest". NBC. Archived from the
original on October 21, 2013. Retrieved March 5, 2013.
"'Judge Judy' Stages Flash Mob". ETonline.com. April 29, 2013. Retrieved August 27,
2013.
"'Judge Judy' Did A Flash Mob For Season 18 Premiere (VIDEO)". The Huffington Post.
August 25, 2013. Retrieved August 27, 2013.
"Judge Judy vs. Nene Leakes". YouTube. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
"Judge Judy vs. Madea". YouTube. March 1, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
"Judge Judy vs. The Undertaker". YouTube. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
"Judge Judy Sheindlin Hollywood Walk of Fame Ceremony Photo Gallery".
Hollywood.com. Retrieved December 24, 2008.
"The Battle to 'Survive' at the Top 2012-08-13 04:01:00 | Broadcasting & Cable".
Broadcastingcable.com. Archived from the original on December 3, 2012. Retrieved December
13, 2012.
"Judge Judy on Future: 'Every Stage In Your Life Has A New Adventure'". The
Huffington Post. November 13, 2012. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
"Judge Judy honoured by UCD society Irish News, World News & More | The Irish
Times Tue, April 09, 2013". The Irish Times. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
"Heroes of Hollywood Honors Judge Judy Sheindlin". nbclosangeles. July 11, 2014.
Retrieved July 14, 2014.
"Allumination Filmworks Is Proud to Release the First DVD From Everyone's Favorite
NoNonsense Judge Judge Judy Sheindlin". Sys-con.com. Retrieved July 22, 2009.
"Daytime Emmys 2011 nominations: See full list 06/17/2011 | Entertainment News
from". OnTheRedCarpet.com. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
"Emmys snub Judge Judy, 'View'ish girls". New York Post. May 10, 2012.

 "Judge Judy on Celebrities and the Justice System". ETonline.com. April 29, 2013.
Archived from the original on January 29, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
"Daytime Emmy Awards 2013: 'The Ellen DeGeneres Show', 'Sesame Street', 'Judge
Judy' Win Awards: TV". Enstarz. October 22, 2012. Retrieved June 17, 2013.
Goldman, Lea and Kiri Blakeley (January 18, 2008). "In Pictures: The Richest 20
Women in Entertainment: Judith "Judge Judy" Sheindlin". Forbes. Retrieved December 23,
2008.
Daniel Bates (May 4, 2011). "Judge Judy speaks out about her mini-stroke: 'I was talking
in slow motion'". Daily Mail (London). Retrieved March 20, 2013.
"Judge Judy explains how she can tell someone is lying WDRB 41 Louisville News,
Weather, Sports Community". Wdrb.com. Retrieved May 18, 2013.
"Judge Judy". WCHS-TV8. 2000. Archived from the original on July 20, 2008. Retrieved
December 24, 2008.
"Judge Judy Like You've Never Seen Her Before Katie Couric". Katiecouric.com.
November 12, 2012. Archived from the original on December 24, 2012. Retrieved March 19,
2013.
"Judge Judy Larry King Live CNN.com Blogs". CNN. February 17, 2010. Retrieved
March 19, 2013.
"The View | Judge Judy". American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
"Donny & Marie With Judge Judy". Tvclip.biz. May 18, 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
Cathy (October 25, 2010). "'The Talk' Upcoming Guests Including Hilary Swank and
Judge Judy | HaveUHeardHaveUHeard". Haveuheard.net. Archived from the original on March
14, 2013. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
"Press Express | Not Available". Cbspressexpress.com. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
"SNL Transcripts: Lucy Lawless: 10/17/98: Judge Judy". Snltranscripts.jt.org. Retrieved
March 19, 2013.
"Biography Episode Guide 2000 Judge Judy: Sitting in Judgement". TV Guide.
Retrieved March 20, 2013.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140415172748/http://tv.nytimes.com/show/52248/JudgeJudy-Sitting-in-Judgment/overview. Archived from the original on April 15, 2014. Retrieved
March 20, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
"Shatner's Raw Nerve Episode Guide 2008 Season 1 Judge Judy, Episode 6". TV
Guide. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
"Judith Sheindlin Interview". Archive of American Television. EmmyTVLegends.org.
Retrieved March 20, 2013.
"Judge Judy with Katie Couric". YouTube. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
"Judge Judy with Katie Couric 92nd Street Y New York, NY". 92y.org. September 17,
2013. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
"CBS To Launch New Courtshow From Judge Judy in Fall". Variety. Retrieved January
24, 2014.
"Judge Judy-Created 'Hot Bench' to Premiere in the Fall". TheWrap. Retrieved January
24, 2014.
"Judge Judy". CBS News. February 11, 2009. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
"Judge Judy | Archive of American Television". Emmytvlegends.org. Retrieved December
13, 2012.

 "Big Ticket sets 'Hot Bench' Tags: HOT Bench With Judge Judy Sheindlin (TV
program) BIG Ticket Television (Company)". Connection.ebscohost.com. Retrieved December
16, 2012.
Adams, Cindy (April 25, 2013). "Judge Judy's fifth book, "What Would Judy Say? A
Grown-Up Guide To Living Together With Benefits," is upon us". New York Post. Retrieved May
5, 2013.
"Judge Judy: You're Smarter Than You Look". Good Morning America. August 20, 2001.
Retrieved November 19, 2011.
"Judge Judy Dishes Out Advice On Her New Website". Retrieved February 29, 2016.
"Reigning Queen of Daytime Television Judge Judy Launches Website Ratings |
TVbytheNumbers". Tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
"Ex-friend of Judge Judy: I'll drop lawsuit if you give back my china set". Daily News
(New York). Retrieved March 15, 2013.
"Judge Judy China Lawsuit SETTLES!". TMZ.com. Retrieved March 16, 2013.
"Judge Judy Sues P.I. Lawyer You Have 'Stupid' on Your Forehead ... Stupid".
TMZ.com. March 6, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
AP 6:59 p.m. EDT March 12, 2014. "Tables turned: Judge Judy files suit against
lawyer". USA Today. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
"Judge Judy Sues Local Personal-Injury Lawyer Hartford Courant".
Articles.courant.com. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
Judge Judy settles lawsuit with Connecticut lawyer | Page Six
"Judge Judy P.I. Lawyer Fires Back ... I Wasn't Promoting Me, I Was Promoting You!".
TMZ.com. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
"Hartford Attorney Fires Back at Judge Judy". Courthouse News Service. July 14, 2014.
Retrieved July 14, 2014.
Judge Judy Wins One for the Girls In Lawsuit against Lawyer | TMZ.com
"Bio: Dr. Jonathan Sheindlin", NYU Langone Medical Center
Adams, Cindy (June 18, 2008). "Don't Judge Judy by her Pricey Digs". The New York
Post. Archived from the original on September 15, 2008. Retrieved December 23, 2008.
Leung, Rebecca (December 10, 2003). "Judge Judy". CBS. Retrieved December 23,
2008.
Paul O'Grady (host) (October 2008). Judge Judy on Paul O'Grady (Television
production). United Kingdom: Granada Television. Retrieved December 23, 2008.
Associated, The. "'Judge Judy' Ruling Daytime TV". NPR. Archived from the original on
February 10, 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013.
"Judge Judy Buys $10.7 Million Condo in Beverly Hills". Hauteliving.com. Retrieved
May 25, 2013.
http://www.judgejudy.com/bios
"The View".
1.

"Judge Judy Interview | Ora TV". ora.tv. December 10, 2013. Archived from
the original on January 30, 2013. Retrieved March 19, 2013.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Judith Sheindlin.

Judith Sheindlin at the Internet Movie Database

Judge Judith Sheindlin at the Notable Names Database

Judge Judy marks 10 years laying down the law, CTV News, February 15, 2006

Biographical article from The Guardian, October 9, 2008

Judge Judith Sheindlin interview video at the Archive of American Television

Authority
control

WorldCat Identities

VIAF: 79459348

LCCN: n95103878

Categories:

1942 births

20th-century American writers

20th-century women writers

21st-century American writers

21st-century women writers

American women lawyers

American Jews

American non-fiction writers

American people of German-Jewish descent

American people of Russian-Jewish descent

American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent

American television personalities

American University alumni

American women judges

American women writers

Daytime Emmy Award winners

Jewish American writers

Living people

New York Law School alumni

New York lawyers

New York state court judges

People from Brooklyn

People from Naples, Florida

Florida Independents

Television judges

Writers from Greenwich, Connecticut

20th-century judges

Navigation menu

Not logged in

Talk

Contributions

Create account

Log in

Article

Talk

Read

Edit

View history

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Wikipedia store

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page

Tools

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item

Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable version

In other projects

Wikimedia Commons

Wikiquote

Languages

Franais

Norsk bokml

Portugus

Simple English

Suomi

Svenska

Edit links

This page was last modified on 14 March 2016, at 19:06.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Cookie statement

Mobile view

Antonin Scalia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Scalia" redirects here. For the surname, see Scalia (surname).

Antonin Scalia

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the

United States
In office
September 26, 1986 February 12/13, 2016
Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Preceded by William Rehnquist
Succeeded by Vacant
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit
In office
August 17, 1982 September 26, 1986
Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Preceded by Roger Robb
Succeeded by David Sentelle
United States Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Counsel
In office
August 22, 1974 January 20, 1977
President
Gerald Ford
Preceded by Roger C. Cramton
Succeeded by John Harmon
Personal details
Antonin Gregory Scalia
Born
March 11, 1936
Trenton, New Jersey, U.S
February 12/13, 2016 (aged 79)
Died
Shafter, Texas, U.S.
Spouse(s) Maureen McCarthy (m. 1960; his

death 2016)
Children
9, including Eugene
Georgetown University
Alma mater
Harvard University
Religion
Roman Catholicism

Signature
Antonin Gregory Scalia ( i/skli/; March 11, 1936 February 12/13, 2016)[8] was an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016.
Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia was described as the
intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.[9]
Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey. He attended public grade school, Xavier High School in
Manhattan, and then college at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.. He obtained his law
degree from Harvard Law School and spent six years in a Cleveland law firm, before he became
a law school professor at the University of Virginia. In the early 1970s, he served in the Nixon
and Ford administrations, eventually as an Assistant Attorney General. He spent most of the
Carter years teaching at the University of Chicago, where he became one of the first faculty
advisers of the fledgling Federalist Society. In 1982, Ronald Reagan appointed him as judge of
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[10] In 1986, Reagan
appointed him to the Supreme Court. Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the Senate,
becoming the first Italian-American justice.[11]
Scalia served on the Court for nearly thirty years, during which time he espoused a conservative
jurisprudence and ideology, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in
constitutional interpretation. He was a strong defender of the powers of the executive branch,
believing presidential power should be paramount in many areas. He opposed affirmative action
and other policies that treated minorities as special groups. He filed separate opinions in many
cases and often castigated the Court's majority in his minority opinions using scathing language.

Contents

1 Early life and education

2 Early legal career (19611982)

3 D.C. Circuit Court Judge and nomination to the Supreme Court (19821986)

4 Jurisprudence (19862016)
o 4.1 Governmental structure and powers

4.1.1 Separation of powers

4.1.2 Detainee cases

4.1.3 Federalism

o 4.2 Individual rights

4.2.1 Abortion

4.2.2 Race, gender, and sexual orientation

4.2.3 Criminal law

4.2.4 Litigation and "Standing"

o 4.3 Other cases

5 Legal philosophy and approach

o 5.1 Judicial performance
o 5.2 Statutory and constitutional interpretation

6 Public attention
o 6.1 Requests for recusals
o 6.2 Religious views
o 6.3 1996 presidential election

7 Personal life
o 7.1 Death

8 Succession

9 Bibliography

10 See also

11 References

12 Bibliography

13 External links

Early life and education

Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, and was an only child.[12]
His father, Salvatore Eugene Scalia (19031986), an Italian immigrant from Sommatino, Sicily,
was a graduate student at Columbia University and clerk at the time of his son's birth.[13] The
elder Scalia would become a professor of Romance languages at Brooklyn College, where he
was an adherent to the formalist New Criticism school of literary theory.[14] His mother,
Catherine Louise (Panaro) Scalia (19051985), was born in Trenton to Italian immigrant parents
and worked as an elementary school teacher.[13][15]
In 1939, Scalia and his family moved to the Elmhurst section of Queens, New York, where he
attended P.S. 13.[16][17] After completing eighth grade in public school,[18] he obtained an academic
scholarship to Xavier High School, a Jesuit military school in Manhattan,[19] where he graduated
first in the class of 1953 and served as the valedictorian.[20] He later stated that he spent much of
his time on schoolwork, and admitted, "I was never cool."[21] While a youth, he was also active as
a Boy Scout and was part of Scouting's national honor society the Order of the Arrow.[22]
Classmate and future New York State official William Stern remembered Scalia in his high
school days:
This kid was a conservative when he was 17 years old. An archconservative Catholic. He could
have been a member of the Curia. He was the top student in the class. He was brilliant, way
above everybody else.[12]
In 1953, Scalia enrolled at Georgetown University, where he graduated valedictorian and summa
cum laude in 1957 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. While in college, he was a
champion collegiate debater in Georgetown's Philodemic Society and a critically praised
thespian.[23] He took his junior year abroad at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.[12] Scalia
studied law at Harvard Law School, where he was a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review.[24]
He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1960, becoming a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard
University. The fellowship allowed him to travel throughout Europe during 19601961.[25]

Early legal career (19611982)

Scalia began his legal career at the international law firm Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis in
Cleveland, Ohio, where he worked from 1961 to 1967.[24] He was highly regarded at the law firm
and would most likely have been made a partner, but later stated he had long intended to teach.[26]
He became a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia in 1967, moving his family to
Charlottesville.[26]
After four years in Charlottesville, Scalia entered public service in 1971. President Richard
Nixon appointed him as the General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy,
where one of his principal assignments was to formulate federal policy for the growth of cable

television.[25] From 1972 to 1974, he was the chairman of the Administrative Conference of the
United States, a small independent agency that sought to improve the functioning of the federal
bureaucracy.[25] In mid-1974, Nixon nominated him as Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Legal Counsel.[25] After Nixon's resignation, the nomination was continued by President
Gerald Ford, and Scalia was confirmed by the Senate on August 22, 1974.[27]
In the aftermath of Watergate, the Ford administration was engaged in a number of conflicts with
Congress. Scalia repeatedly testified before congressional committees, defending Ford
administration assertions of executive privilege regarding its refusal to turn over documents.[28]
Within the administration, Scalia advocated a presidential veto for a bill to amend the Freedom
of Information Act, greatly increasing its scope. Scalia's view prevailed and Ford vetoed the bill,
but Congress overrode it.[29] In early 1976, Scalia argued his only case before the Supreme Court,
Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba. Scalia, on behalf of the U.S. government,
argued in support of Dunhill, and that position was successful.[30] Following Ford's defeat by
President Jimmy Carter, Scalia worked for several months at the American Enterprise Institute.
[31]
He then returned to academia, taking up residence at the University of Chicago Law School
from 1977 to 1982,[32] though he spent one year as a visiting professor at Stanford Law School.[33]
In 1981, he became the first faculty adviser for the University of Chicago's chapter of the newly
founded Federalist Society.[32]

D.C. Circuit Court Judge and nomination to the Supreme

Court (19821986)
President Reagan and then-nominee Scalia in the Oval Office, July 7, 1986
When Ronald Reagan was elected President in November 1980, Scalia hoped for a major
position in the new administration. He was interviewed for the position of Solicitor General of
the United States, but the position went to Rex E. Lee, to Scalia's great disappointment.[34] Scalia
was offered a seat on the Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
in early 1982, but declined it, hoping to be appointed to the highly influential United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). Later that year, Reagan offered
Scalia a seat on the D.C. Circuit, which Scalia accepted.[35] He was confirmed by the US Senate
on August 5, 1982, and was sworn in on August 17, 1982.[36]
On the D.C. Circuit, Scalia built a conservative record, while winning applause in legal circles
for powerful, witty legal writing, which was often critical of the Supreme Court precedents he
felt bound as a lower-court judge to follow. Scalia's opinions drew the attention of Reagan
administration officials, who, according to The New York Times, "liked virtually everything they
saw and ... listed him as a leading Supreme Court prospect."[37] In 1985, though there was then no
vacancy on the Court, Reagan administration officials put Scalia on a short list with fellow D.C.
Circuit Judge Robert Bork, to be considered if a justice left the Court. In 1986, Chief Justice
Warren Burger informed the White House of his intent to retire. Reagan first decided to nominate
Associate Justice William Rehnquist to become Chief Justice. This choice meant that Reagan
would also have to choose a nominee to fill Rehnquist's seat as associate justice.[38] Attorney
General Edwin Meese, who advised Reagan on the choice, seriously considered only Bork and

Scalia.[39] Feeling that this might well be Reagan's last opportunity to pick a Supreme Court
justice, the President and his advisers chose Scalia over Bork. Many factors influenced this
decision. Reagan wanted to appoint the first Italian-American justice.[40] In addition, Scalia was
ten years younger, and would likely serve longer on the Court.[38] Scalia also had the advantage
of not having Bork's "paper trail";[41] the elder judge had written controversial articles about
individual rights.[42] Scalia was called to the White House, and accepted Reagan's nomination.[38]
When Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Scalia's nomination opened in August 1986, he
faced a committee that had just argued divisively over the Rehnquist nomination. Witnesses and
Democratic senators contended that, before becoming a judge, Rehnquist had engaged in
activities designed to discourage minorities from voting. Committee members had little taste for
a second battle over Scalia and were in any event reluctant to oppose the first Italian-American
Supreme Court nominee.[43] The judge was not pressed heavily on controversial issues such as
abortion or civil rights.[44] Scalia, who attended the hearing with his wife and nine children seated
behind him, found time for a humorous exchange with Democratic Ohio Senator Howard
Metzenbaum, whom he had defeated in a tennis match in, as the nominee put it, "a case of my
integrity overcoming my judgment".[45]
Scalia met no opposition from the committee. The full Senate debated Scalia's nomination only
briefly, and confirmed him 980 on September 17, 1986, creating the first Italian-American
Justice.[11] This vote followed Rehnquist's confirmation as Chief Justice by a vote of 6533 on the
same day. He took his seat on September 26, 1986. One committee member, Democratic
Delaware Senator Joe Biden, later stated that he regretted not having opposed Scalia "because he
was so effective".[46]

Jurisprudence (19862016)
Governmental structure and powers
Separation of powers

The 20092010 Court, with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and retiring
justice David Souter with Scalia fourth from right
It was Scalia's view that clear lines of separation among the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches follow directly from the Constitution, with no branch allowed to exercise powers
granted to another branch.[47] In his early days on the Court, he authored a powerfuland solitary
dissent in 1988's Morrison v. Olson, in which the Court's majority upheld the Independent

Counsel law. Scalia's thirty-page draft dissent surprised Justice Harry Blackmun for its emotional
content; Blackmun felt "it could be cut down to ten pages if Scalia omitted the screaming".[48]
Scalia indicated that the law was an unwarranted encroachment on the Executive Branch by the
Legislative. He warned, "Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to
speak, in sheep's clothing ... But this wolf comes as a wolf."[48]
The 1989 case of Mistretta v. United States challenged the United States Sentencing
Commission, an independent body within the judicial branch whose members (some of whom
were federal judges) were removable only for good cause. The petitioner argued that the
arrangement violated separation of powers, and that the United States Sentencing Guidelines
promulgated by the Commission were invalid. Eight justices joined in the majority opinion
written by Blackmun, upholding the Guidelines as constitutional.[49] Scalia dissented, stating that
the issuance of the Guidelines was a lawmaking function that Congress could not delegate,[50] and
dubbed the Commission "a sort of junior-varsity Congress".[48]
In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act which allowed the President to cancel items
from an appropriations bill (a bill authorizing spending) once passed into law. The statute was
challenged the following year. The matter rapidly reached the Supreme Court, which struck
down the law as violating the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which governs what the
President may do with a bill once it has passed both Houses of Congress.[51] Scalia dissented,
seeing no Presentment Clause difficulties and feeling that the act did not violate separation of
powers. Scalia indicated that he felt that authorizing the President to cancel an appropriation was
no different from allowing him to spend an appropriation at his discretion, which had long been
accepted as constitutional.[52]
Detainee cases
In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the Court held that federal courts had jurisdiction to hear habeas
corpus petitions brought by detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. Scalia accused
the majority of "spring[ing] a trap on the Executive" by ruling that it could hear cases involving
persons at Guantanamo when no federal court had ever ruled that it had the authority to hear
cases involving people there.[53]
Scalia (joined by Justice John Paul Stevens) also dissented in the 2004 case of Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, involving Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen detained in the United States on the
allegation he was an enemy combatant. The Court held that although Congress authorized
Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United
States as an enemy combatant [Hamdi] the right to contest that detention before a neutral
decision maker. Scalia wrote that the AUMF could not be read to suspend habeas corpus and
that the Court, faced with legislation by Congress which did not grant the President power to
detain Hamdi, was trying to "Make Everything Come Out Right".[54]
In March 2006, Scalia gave a talk at the University of Fribourg, in Switzerland, where he was
asked about detainee rights. He responded, "Give me a break ... I had a son on that battlefield and
they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a
full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."[55] Though Scalia was not referring to any particular individual,

the Supreme Court was about to consider the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, supposed driver to
Osama bin Laden, who was challenging the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.[55] A
group of retired military officers that supported Hamdan's position asked Scalia to recuse
himself, or step aside from hearing the case, which he declined to do.[56] The Court held, 53, in
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the federal courts had jurisdiction to consider Hamdan's claims; Scalia,
in dissent, contended that any ability by the Court to consider Hamdan's petition had been
eliminated by the jurisdiction stripping Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.[57]
Federalism
In federalism cases, pitting the powers of the federal government against those of the states,
Scalia often took the states' positions. In 1997, the Supreme Court considered the case of Printz
v. United States, a challenge to certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
which required chief law enforcement officers of localities in states to perform certain duties. In
Printz, Scalia wrote the Court's majority decision. The Supreme Court ruled the provision which
imposed those duties unconstitutional as violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the
states and to the people those powers not granted to the federal government.[58] In 2005, Scalia
concurred in Gonzales v. Raich, which read the Commerce Clause to hold that Congress could
ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes. Scalia opined
that the Commerce Clause, together with the Necessary and Proper Clause, permitted the
regulation. In addition, Scalia felt that Congress may regulate intrastate activities if doing so is a
necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.[59] He based this decision on
Wickard v. Filburn, which he now writes "expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason."[60]
Scalia rejected the existence of the negative Commerce Clause doctrine,[61][62] calling it "a judicial
fraud".[63]
Scalia took a broad view of the Eleventh Amendment, which bars certain lawsuits against states
in the federal courts. In his 1989 dissent in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., Scalia stated that
there was no intent on the part of the Framers to have the states surrender any sovereign
immunity, and that the case that provoked the Eleventh Amendment, Chisholm v. Georgia, came
as a surprise to them. Professor Ralph Rossum, who wrote a survey of Scalia's constitutional
views, suggests that the justice's view of the Eleventh Amendment is actually contradictory to the
language of the Amendment.[64]

Individual rights
Abortion
Scalia argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion, and that if the people desire
legalized abortion, a law should be passed to accomplish it.[21] Scalia wrote in his dissenting
opinion in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey,
The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require
them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like

most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then
voting.[65]
Scalia repeatedly called upon his colleagues to strike down Roe v. Wade. Scalia hoped to find
five votes to strike down Roe in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, but
was not successful in doing so. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor authored the decision of the Court,
allowing the abortion regulations at issue in the case to stand, but not overriding Roe. Scalia
concurred only in part.[66] Scalia wrote that, "Justice O'Connor's assertion, that a 'fundamental
rule of judicial restraint' requires us to avoid reconsidering Roe, cannot be taken seriously."[67] He
noted, "We can now look forward to at least another Term of carts full of mail from the public,
and the streets full of demonstrators."[68]
The Court returned to the issue of abortion in the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart, in which it
invalidated a Nebraska statute outlawing partial-birth abortion. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for
the Court that the law was unconstitutional as it did not allow an exception for the health of the
mother. Scalia dissented, comparing the Stenberg case with two of the most reviled cases in
Supreme Court history: "I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will
be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court's jurisprudence beside Korematsu and
Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child ... proscribed by this statute is so horrible that
the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion."[69]
In 2007, the Court upheld a federal statute banning partial-birth abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart.
[70]
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone, a former colleague of Scalia's,
criticized Gonzales, stating that religion had influenced the outcome as all five justices in the
majority were Catholic, whereas the dissenters were Protestant or Jewish.[71] This angered Scalia
to such an extent that he stated he would not speak at the University of Chicago as long as Stone
is there.[72]
Race, gender, and sexual orientation
Scalia generally voted to strike down laws that make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual
orientation. In 1989, he concurred with the Court's judgment in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson
Co., in which the Court applied strict scrutiny to a city program requiring a certain percentage of
contracts to go to minorities, and struck down the program. Scalia did not join the majority
opinion, however. He disagreed with O'Connor's opinion, for the Court, that states and localities
could institute race-based programs, if they identified past discrimination, and if the program
was designed to remedy the past racism.[73] Five years later, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
Pea he concurred in the Court's judgment and in part with the opinion which extended strict
scrutiny to federal programs. Scalia noted in that matter his view that government can never have
a compelling interest in making up for past discrimination by racial preferences,
To pursue the concept of racial entitlementeven for the most admirable and benign of purposes
is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery,
race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is
American.[74]

In the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, involving racial preferences in the University of
Michigan's law school, Scalia mocked the Court majority's finding that the school was entitled to
continue using race as a factor in admissions to promote diversity, and to increase "cross-racial
understanding". Scalia noted,
This is not, of course, an "educational benefit" on which students will be graded on their Law
School transcript (Works and Plays Well with Others: B+) or tested by the bar examiners (Q:
Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding). For it is a lesson of life rather
than lawessentially the same lesson taught to (or rather learned by, for it cannot be "taught" in
the usual sense) people three feet shorter and twenty years younger than the full-grown adults at
the University of Michigan Law School, in institutions ranging from Boy Scout troops to publicschool kindergartens.[75]
Scalia argued that laws that make distinctions between genders should be subjected to
intermediate scrutiny, requiring that the gender classification be substantially related to important
government objectives.[76] When, in 1996, the Court upheld a suit brought by a woman who
wished to enter the Virginia Military Institute in the case of United States v. Virginia, Scalia filed
a lone, lengthy dissent. Scalia felt that the Court, in requiring Virginia to show an "extremely
persuasive justification" for the single-sex admissions policy, had redefined intermediate scrutiny
in such a way "that makes it indistinguishable from strict scrutiny".[77]
In one of the final decisions of the Burger Court, the Court ruled in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick
that homosexual sodomy was not protected by the right of privacy and could be criminally
prosecuted by the states.[78] In 1995, however, that ruling was effectively gutted by Romer v.
Evans, which struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment, passed by popular vote,
which forbade anti-discrimination laws being extended to sexual orientation.[79] Scalia dissented
from the opinion by Justice Kennedy, believing that Bowers had protected the right of the states
to pass such measures, and that the Colorado amendment was not discriminatory, but merely
prevented homosexuals from gaining favored status under Colorado law.[80] Scalia later said of
Romer, "And the Supreme Court said, 'Yes, it is unconstitutional.' On the basis ofI don't know,
the Sexual Preference Clause of the Bill of Rights, presumably. And the liberals loved it, and the
conservatives gnashed their teeth."[81]
In 2003, Bowers was formally reversed by Lawrence v. Texas, from which Scalia dissented.
According to Mark V. Tushnet in his survey of the Rehnquist Court, during the oral argument in
the case, Scalia seemed so intent on making the state's argument for it that the Chief Justice
intervened.[82] According to his biographer, Joan Biskupic, Scalia "ridiculed" the majority in his
dissent for being so ready to cast aside Bowers when many of the same justices had refused to
overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[83] In March 2009, openly gay Congressman
Barney Frank described him as a "homophobe".[84] Maureen Dowd described Scalia in a 2003
column as "Archie Bunker in a high-backed chair".[85] In an op-ed for The New York Times,
federal appeals judge Richard Posner and Georgia State University law professor Eric Segall
described as radical Scalia's positions on homosexuality, reflecting an apparent belief that the
religious stances supposedly held by the majority of US citizens should take precedence over the
Constitution and characterizing Scalia's "political ideal as verg[ing] on majoritarian
theocracy."[86]

Criminal law

Scalia (right) at the Harvard Law School on November 30, 2006

Scalia believed that the death penalty is constitutional.[87] He dissented in decisions that hold the
death penalty unconstitutional as applied to certain groups, such as those who were under the age
of 18 at the time of offense. In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), he dissented from the Court's
ruling that the death penalty could not be applied to those aged 15 at the time of the offense, and
the following year authored the Court's opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky sustaining the death
penalty for those who killed at age 16. However, in 2005, the Court overturned Stanford in
Roper v. Simmons and Scalia again dissented, mocking the majority's claims that a national
consensus had emerged against the execution of those who killed while underage, and noted that
less than half of the states that permitted the death penalty prohibited it for underage killers. He
castigated the majority for including in their count states that had abolished the death penalty
entirely, stating that doing so was "rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumerpreference poll on the electric car. Of course they don't like it, but that sheds no light whatever on
the point at issue."[88] In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Court ruled the death penalty
unconstitutional as applied to the mentally retarded. Scalia dissented, stating that it would not
have been considered cruel or unusual to execute the mildly mentally retarded at the time of the
1791 adoption of the Bill of Rights, and that the Court had failed to show that a national
consensus had formed against the practice.[89]
Scalia strongly disfavored the Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, which held that a confession
by an arrested suspect who had not been advised of his rights was inadmissible in court, and
voted to overrule Miranda in the 2000 case of Dickerson v. United States, but was in a minority
of two with Justice Clarence Thomas. Calling the Miranda decision a "milestone of judicial
overreaching", Scalia stated that the Court should not fear to correct its mistakes.[90]
Although, in many areas, Scalia's approach was unfavorable to criminal defendants, he took the
side of defendants in matters involving the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which
guarantees defendants the right to confront their accusers. In multiple cases, Scalia wrote against
laws that allowed alleged victims of child abuse to testify behind screens or by closed-circuit
television.[91] In a 2009 case, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz v.
Massachusetts, holding that defendants must have the opportunity to confront lab technicians in
drug cases; a certificate of analysis is not enough to prove a substance was drugs.[92]

Scalia maintained that every element of an offense that helps determine the sentence must be
either admitted by the defendant or found by a jury under the Sixth Amendment's jury guarantee.
In the 2000 case of Apprendi v. New Jersey, Scalia wrote the Court's majority opinion that struck
down a state statute that allowed the trial judge to increase the sentence if he found the offense
was a hate crime. Scalia found the procedure impermissible because whether it was a hate crime
had not been decided by the jury.[93] In 2004, he wrote for the Court in Blakely v. Washington,
striking down Washington state's sentencing guidelines on similar grounds. The dissenters in
Blakely foresaw that Scalia would use the case to attack the federal sentencing guidelines (which
he had failed to strike down in Mistretta), and they proved correct, as Scalia led a five-member
majority in United States v. Booker, which made those guidelines no longer mandatory for
federal judges to follow (they remained advisory).[93]
In the 2001 case of Kyllo v. United States, Scalia wrote the Court's opinion in a 54 decision that
cut across ideological lines.[94] That decision found thermal imaging of a home to be an
unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court struck down a conviction for
marijuana manufacture based on a search warrant issued after such scans were conducted, which
showed that the garage was considerably hotter than the rest of the house because of indoor
growing lights.[95] Applying that Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and
seizure to arrest, Scalia dissented from the Court's 1991 decision in County of Riverside v.
McLaughlin, allowing a 48-hour delay before a person arrested without a warrant is taken before
a magistrate, on the ground that at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, an arrested
person was to be taken before a magistrate as quickly as practicable.[96] In a 1990 First
Amendment case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Scalia wrote the Court's opinion striking down a St. Paul,
Minnesota, hate speech ordinance in a prosecution for burning a cross.[97] Scalia noted, "Let there
be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But
St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First
Amendment to the fire."[98]
Litigation and "Standing"
Following the death of Scalia, Paul Barrett writing for Bloomberg News Weekly, reported that:
"Translating into liberal argot: Scalia changed the rules for who could sue." The issue elevated
the recognition of Scalia as a notable influence on establishing and determining the conditions
under which cases could be brought to trial and for litigation, and by whom such litigation could
take place.[99] David Rivkin, from the conservative standpoint, stated that: "He (Scalia) did more
to clarify and limit the bounds and scope of judicial power than any Supreme Court Justice in
history, particularly in the area of standing and class actions." Scalia indicated his long held
position from the time his 1983 law review article titled "The Doctrine of Standing as an
Essential Element of the Separation of Powers". As summarized by Barrett, "He (Scalia) wrote
that courts had misappropriated authority from other branches of government by allowing too
many people to sue corporations and government agencies, especially in environmental cases."
In a practical sense, Scalia brought to the attention of the Court the ability to restrict "standing"
in class action suits in which the litigants may be defined in descriptive terms rather than as welldefined and unambiguous litigants.[100]

Other cases

Scalia concurred in the 1990 case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health in which
the family of a woman in a vegetative state sought to have her feeding tube removed so she
would die, believing that to have been her wish. The Court found for the State of Missouri,
requiring clear and convincing evidence of such a desire. Scalia stated that the Court should have
remained away from the dispute, and that the issues "are [not] better known to the nine Justices
of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas
City telephone directory".[101]
Scalia joined the majority per curiam opinion in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, which effectively
ended recounts of ballots in Florida following the 2000 US Presidential election, and also both
concurred separately and joined Rehnquist's concurrence.[102] In 2007, he said of the case, "I and
my court owe no apology whatever for Bush v. Gore. We did the right thing. So there! ... get over
it. It's so old by now."[103] During an interview on the Charlie Rose show, he defended the Court's
action:
The decision was not close, it was 72 on the principal issue of whether there had been a
constitutional violation ... But what if it was unconstitutional to have that recount? You're going
to let it continue and come to a conclusion? And then overturn it? The reason to stop it sooner
was not, "Ooh, we're worried that it's going to come out the wrong way."... you forget what was
going on at the time. We were the laughingstock of the world. The world's greatest democracy
that couldn't conduct an election. We didn't know who our next president was going to be. The
lengthy transition that has become standard when you change from one president to another
could not begin because you didn't know who the new president was going to be. It was
becoming a very serious problem. The issue before the United States Supreme Court is: having
decided the case, having decided this is unconstitutional, should we nonetheless let the election
go on? Or is it time cut it off and let's move on?[104]

Scalia in 2010
In 2008, the Court considered a challenge to the gun laws in the District of Columbia. Scalia
wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found an individual right to
own a firearm under the Second Amendment. Scalia traced the word "militia", found in the
Second Amendment, as it would have been understood at the time of its ratification, and stated
that it then meant "the body of all citizens".[101] The Court upheld Heller's claim to own a firearm
in the District.[101]
Scalia's opinion for the Heller Court was widely criticized by liberals, and applauded by
conservatives.[105] However, Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner disagreed with Scalia's

opinion, stating that the Second Amendment "creates no right to the private possession of guns".
Posner called Scalia's opinion "faux originalism" and a "historicizing glaze on personal values
and policy preferences".[106] In October 2008 Scalia stated that the court's originalists only needed
to show that at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the right to bear arms did not have
an exclusively military context, and that they were successful in so showing.[107]

Legal philosophy and approach

Judicial performance
During oral argument before the Court, Scalia asked more questions and made more comments
than any other justice[108]and a 2005 study found that he provoked laughter more often than any
of his colleagues.[109] His goal during oral arguments was to get across his position to the other
justices.[110] University of Kansas social psychologist Lawrence Wrightsman wrote of Scalia's
style, "he communicates a sense of urgency on the bench, and his style is forever forceful".[108]
Since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court in 2005, he has taken to questioning counsel in
a manner similar to Scalia's and sometimes the two questioned counsel in seeming coordination.
[110]
Dahlia Lithwick of Slate described Scalia's technique:
Scalia doesn't come into oral argument all secretive and sphinxlike, feigning indecision on the
nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows
what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for
argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.[111]
Scalia wrote numerous opinions from the start of his career on the Supreme Court. During his
tenure, he wrote more concurring opinions than any other justice, and only two justices have
written more dissents.[112] According to Kevin Ring, who compiled a book of Scalia's dissenting
and concurring opinions, "His opinions are ... highly readable. His entertaining writing style can
make even the most mundane areas of the law interesting."[113] Conor Clarke of Slate comments
on Scalia's written opinions, especially his dissents:
His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a
taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusionsoften very funny onesand he speaks in no
uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal
jargon. But most of all, Scalia's opinions read like they're about to catch fire for pure outrage. He
does not, in short, write like a happy man.[114]
At the Supreme Court, justices meet after the case is briefed and argued, and vote on the result.
The task of writing the opinion is assigned by the Chief Justice, or if they are in the minority or
not participating, by the senior justice in the majority. After the assignment, the justices generally
communicate about a case by sending notes and draft opinions to each other's chambers.[115] In
the give and take of opinion writing, Scalia did not compromise his views in order to attract five
votes for a majority (unlike the late Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. who would accept less than he
wanted in order to gain a partial victory).[116] Scalia, known to his friends and colleagues as
"Nino",[117] attempted to influence his colleagues by sending them "Ninograms"short
memoranda aimed at trying to get them to include his views in their opinions.[112][117]

In an October 2013 issue of New York magazine, Scalia revealed that he scanned the Wall Street
Journal and the Washington Times, got most of his news from talk radio and did not read The
New York Times or The Washington Post. The latter he described as "shrilly liberal."[118]

Statutory and constitutional interpretation

Judge and Mrs. Scalia (left) and President Reagan (right) watch as Chief Justice Warren Burger
swears in William Rehnquist as his successor, September 26, 1986.
Scalia was a textualist in statutory interpretation, believing that the ordinary meaning of the
statute should govern.[119] In 1998, Scalia vociferously had opposed the idea of a living
constitution, or the power of the judiciary to modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to
adapt them to changing times.[21] Scalia warned that if one accepted that constitutional standards
should evolve with a maturing society, "the risk of assessing evolving standards is that it is all
too easy to believe that evolution has culminated in one's own views."[120] He compared the
Constitution with statutes, which he contended were not understood to change their meaning
through time.[24] Constitutional amendments, such as the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, according
to Scalia, were to be interpreted based on their meaning at the time of ratification.[121] Scalia was
often asked how this approach justified the result in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of
Education, which held that segregated schools were unconstitutional, and which relied on the
Fourteenth Amendment for the result.[122]
In interpreting statutes, Scalia did not look to legislative history. In the 2006 case of Zedner v.
United States, he joined the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alitoall except one
paragraph of the opinion, in which Alito cited legislative history. In a concurring opinion in that
case, Scalia noted, "The use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the
interpretation of any statute."[123] His dislike of legislative history may have been a reason why
other justices have become more cautious in its use.[124] Gregory Maggs wrote in the Public
Interest Law Review in 1995 that by the early 1990s, legislative history was being cited in only
about forty percent of Supreme Court cases involving the interpretation of statutes, and no case
of that era used legislative history as an essential reason for the outcome. Maggs suggested,
With Justice Scalia breathing down the necks of anyone who peeks into the Congressional
Record or Senate reports, the other members of the Court may have concluded that the benefit of
citing legislative history does not outweigh its costs. It is likely for this reason that the
percentage of cases citing it has decreased dramatically. No one likes an unnecessary fight,
especially not one with as formidable an opponent as Justice Scalia.[124]

Scalia described himself as an originalist, meaning that he interpreted the Constitution of the
United States as it would have been understood when it was adopted. According to Scalia in
2008, "It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified
the Constitution."[21] In 2006, before George W. Bush appointees Roberts and Alito had time to
make an impact, Rossum, wrote that Scalia had failed to win converts among his conservative
colleagues for his use of originalism,[125] whereas Roberts and Alito, as younger men with an
originalist approach greatly admired Scalia battling for what he believed in.[126]
In a 2009 public conversation, Justice Stephen Breyer questioned Scalia, indicating that those
who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to end school segregation. Scalia called
this argument "waving the bloody shirt of Brown", and indicated that he would have joined the
first Justice Harlan's solitary dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that Brown overruled.
[127]

Scalia's originalist approach came under attack from critics, who viewed it as "a cover for what
they see as Scalia's real intention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 1960s and
70s", reached by the Warren and Burger Courts.[21] Ralph Nader argued in 2008 that Scalia's
originalist philosophy was inconsistent with the justice's acceptance of the extension of certain
constitutional rights to corporations when at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification,
corporations were not commonly understood to possess constitutional rights.[128] Nader's view
preceded the Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Scalia, in
his concurrence in that case, traced his understanding of the rights of groups of individuals at the
time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. His argument was based on the lack of an exception
for groups such as corporations in the free speech guarantee in the Bill of Rights, and on several
examples of corporate political speech from the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[129]
Professor Thomas Colby of The George Washington University National Law Center argued that
Scalia's votes in Establishment Clause cases do not stem from originalist views, but simply from
conservative political convictions.[130] Scalia responded to his critics that his originalism "has
occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag
burning", which according to Scalia was protected by the First Amendment.[21]

The 2009 Supreme Court, Scalia seated second from right

In 2009, after nearly a quarter century on the Court, Scalia characterized his victories as "damn
few".[131]

Writing in The Jewish Daily Forward in 2009, J.J. Goldberg described Scalia as "the intellectual
anchor of the court's conservative majority".[132] He traveled to the nation's law schools, giving
talks on law and democracy.[112] His appearances on college campuses were often standing room
only.[133] Ginsburg indicated that Scalia was "very much in tune with the current generation of
law students ... Students now put 'Federalist Society' on their resumes."[134] John Paul Stevens,
who served throughout Scalia's tenure until his 2010 retirement, said of Scalia's influence, "He's
made a huge difference. Some of it constructive, some of it unfortunate."[134] Of the nine sitting
justices, Scalia was most often the subject of law review articles.[133]

Public attention
Requests for recusals

Scalia (right) works on a book with Bryan A. Garner.

Scalia recused himself from Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), a claim
brought by atheist Michael Newdow alleging that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
(including the words "under God") in school classrooms violated the rights of his daughter, who
he said was also an atheist. Shortly after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled in Newdow's favor, but before the case came before the Supreme Court, Scalia spoke at a
Knights of Columbus event in Fredericksburg, Virginia, stating that the Ninth Circuit decision
was an example of how the courts were trying to excise God from public life. The school district
requested that the Supreme Court review the case, and Newdow asked that Scalia recuse himself
because of this prior statement, which he did without comment.[135]
Scalia refused to recuse himself from Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (2005), a case concerning whether Vice President Dick Cheney could keep secret the
membership of an advisory task force on energy policy. Scalia was asked to recuse himself
because he had gone on a hunting trip with various persons including Cheney, during which he
traveled one way on Air Force Two. Scalia refused to recuse himself, stating that though Cheney
was a longtime friend, he was merely being sued in his official capacity, and that were justices to
step aside in the cases of officials who are parties because of official capacity, the Supreme Court
would cease to function. Scalia indicated that it was far from unusual for justices to socialize
with other government officials, recalling that the late Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson played poker
with President Harry Truman, and that Justice Byron White went skiing with Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy. Scalia stated that he was never alone with Cheney during the trip, the two
had not discussed the case, and the justice had saved no money since he had bought round-trip

tickets, the cheapest available.[136] Scalia was part of the 72 majority once the case was heard
which generally upheld Cheney's position.[137]

Religious views
Scalia was a devout Roman Catholic, and his son Paul entered the priesthood. Uncomfortable
with the changes brought about following Vatican II, Scalia drove long distances to parishes that
he felt were more in accord with his beliefs, such as the Tridentine Latin Mass in both Chicago
and Washington[138] and also the Latin version[139] of the Mass of Paul VI at St. Catherine of Siena
in Great Falls, Virginia.[140] In a 2013 interview with Jennifer Senior for New York magazine,
Scalia was asked if his beliefs extended to the Devil, and he stated, "Of course! Yeah, he's a real
person. Hey, c'mon, that's standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that". When asked
if he had seen recent evidence of the Devil, Scalia replied, "You know, it is curious. In the
Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing
people and whatnot ... What he's doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God.
He's much more successful that way".[118] In another 2013 interview, Scalia stated that "In order
for capitalism to work, in order for it to produce a good and stable society, traditional Christian
virtues are essential".[141]
In 2006, Scalia was asked by a reporter upon leaving church, if being a traditionalist Catholic
had caused problems for him and responded by asking, "You know what I say to those people?",
and with a gesture, cupping his hand under his chin and flicking his fingers out. The gesture,
which was captured by a photographer, was initially reported by the Boston Herald as obscene.
Scalia responded to the reports with a letter to the editor accusing the news staff of watching too
many episodes of The Sopranos and stating that the gesture was a strong brush-off. Roger Axtell,
an expert on body language, described the gesture as possibly meaning "I've had enough, go
away" and noted, "It's a fairly strong gesture".[142]

1996 presidential election

According to John Boehner, as chairman of the House Republican Conference, he sought to
persuade Scalia to run for election as vice president with Bob Dole in 1996. As related by
Boehner, Scalia listened to the proposal and dictated the same reply Justice Charles Evans
Hughes had once given to a similar query: "The possibility is too remote to comment upon, given
my position." Dole did put Scalia on his list of potential running mates, but eventually settled on
Jack Kemp.[143]

Personal life
On September 10, 1960, Scalia married Maureen McCarthy at St. Pius X church in Yarmouth,
Massachusetts.[144] The two had met on a blind date while he was at Harvard Law School.
Maureen was an undergraduate student at Radcliffe College when they met and subsequently
obtained a degree in English from the school.[145]
The couple raised nine children, five boys and four girls.[146] Two of the sons, Eugene Scalia and
John Scalia, are attorneys. Paul Scalia is a Catholic priest, Matthew had a career in the Army, and

Christopher is a writer. All four daughters, Catherine, Ann, Margaret and Mary, have families.
According to Scalia, Maureen raised all nine children "with very little assistance from me." [147]
He resided in McLean, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C.[148]
Scalia enjoyed a warm relationship with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, considered a
member of the court's liberal wing, with the two attending the opera together, and even appearing
together onstage as supernumeraries in Washington National Opera's 1994 production of Ariadne
auf Naxos.[108] Ginsburg was a colleague of Scalia's on the D.C. Circuit, and the Scalias and
Ginsburgs had dinner together every New Year's Eve.[149]

Death
Wikinews has related news: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies, aged 79
Scalia died in his sleep[1] on the night of February 12 or the morning of February 13, 2016,[7]
following an afternoon of quail hunting and dining at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas.
[150]
He was pronounced dead of apparent natural causes.[151] His physician, Rear Admiral Brian P.
Monahan, said that Scalia had a history of heart trouble, including high blood pressure, and had
recently been deemed too weak to undergo surgery for a torn rotator cuff.[152][153]
Scalia's chair in the chamber and the front of the bench where he sat were draped with black
wool crpe, with black crpe over the court's entrance, a tradition since the death of Chief Justice
Salmon P. Chase in 1873. Flags on the Court's front plaza were flown at half-staff for 30 days.[154]
Scalia's body lay in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court of the United States on
February 19, 2016 and a Catholic funeral Mass was held on February 20 at the Basilica of the
National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C..[155] The burial took place at
an undisclosed location.

Succession
Main article: Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination
Scalia's death only the second death of a serving justice in a span of sixty years[156] left eight
justices remaining on the Supreme Court, split 44 between being fairly conservative and fairly
liberal, during a presidential election year.[157][158] President Barack Obama said that he will
nominate his successor in "due time".[159] In a 2012 interview, Scalia said that he would prefer
Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as his successor.[160]
Cases that were not decided before Scalia's death will be decided by the remaining eight
members of the Court.[161] If the Court issues a split 44 ruling, the Court will not publish a
written opinion with respect to the merits of the case. The ruling of the lower court will be
upheld, but the Supreme Court's decision will have no precedential effect.[161][162] Citing the
Court's practices following the death of Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1954, Tom Goldstein wrote

that the Court is more likely to rehear evenly-divided cases after a new justice is appointed to the
Court.[163]

Bibliography

Scalia, Antonin (1997), Gutmann, Amy, ed., A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts
and the Law, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-00400-5

Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2008), Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading
Judges, St. Paul: Thomson West, ISBN 978-0-314-18471-9

Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012), Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts, St. Paul: Thomson West, ISBN 978-0-314-27555-4

See also

List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan

List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office

References
1.
Liptak, Alan (February 13, 2016), "Justice Antonin Scalia, Who Led a Conservative
Renaissance on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 79", The New York Times, retrieved February 13,
2016
Hunt, Darren (February 13, 2016), Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies during hunting
trip near Marfa, KVIA-TV, retrieved February 13, 2016
Smith, David (February 13, 2016), "Antonin Scalia obituary: conservative supreme court
justice dies aged 79", The Guardian, retrieved February 14, 2016
Whitely, Jason (February 14, 2016). "Official: Scalia died of heart attack". USA Today.
Retrieved February 14, 2016.
Bobic, Igor (February 14, 2016). "Antonin Scalia Died Of A Heart Attack: Report". The
Huffington Post. Retrieved February 14, 2016.
Connelly, Eileen (February 13, 2016), "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at
79", New York Post, retrieved February 13, 2016
Straub, Lana; Moravec, Eva Ruth; Horwitz, Sari; Markon, Jerry (February 14, 2016).
"The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports". The Washington Post.
Retrieved February 14, 2016.
See:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Toobin, Jeffrey (2012), "Lawyers, guns, and money", in Toobin, Jeffrey, The oath: the
Obama White House and the Supreme Court, New York: Doubleday, pp. 111112,
ISBN 9780385527200. Details.

 Martin, Gary; Contreras, Guillermo, "Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch", San Antonio Express-News (Texas), retrieved
February 13, 2016
Dautrich, Kenneth; Yalof, David A. (2009), "The judiciary", in Dautrich, Kenneth; Yalof,
David A., American government: historical, popular, and global perspectives, Australia United
States Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning, p. 241, ISBN 9780495566151. Preview.
Molotski, Irwin (June 18, 1986), "The Supreme Court: Man in the News; Judge with
tenacity and charm: Antonin Scalia", The New York Times, retrieved January 12, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 1115
Talbot, Margaret (March 28, 2005), "Supreme confidence: The jurisprudence of Antonin
Scalia", The New Yorker, retrieved February 15, 2016
"Antonin Scalia Fast Facts". CNN. March 8, 2013.
Murphy 2014, p. 10.
Barker, Kim (2016-02-14). "In Queens, Antonin Scalia Took Pride in Melting Pot and
Confrontation". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-02-15.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 1719.
Biskupic 2009, p. 21.
Marcus, Ruth (June 22, 1986), "Scalia tenacious after staking out a position", The
Washington Post, retrieved January 12, 2010
Justice Scalia on the record, CBS, August 24, 2008, archived from the original on
January 4, 2010, retrieved January 13, 2010
Wendell, Bryan. "Before he served on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia was a Boy
Scout". Retrieved 18 February 2016.
Murphy 2014, pp. 2227.
"Scalia Speaks in Ames, Scolds Aggressive Student", Harvard Law Record, December 7,
2006, archived from the original on April 10, 2010, retrieved January 12, 2010
Fox, John, Biographies of the Robes: Antonin Gregory Scalia, PBS, retrieved January
12, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 3738.
Biskupic 2009, p. 40.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 4953.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 4547.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 63, 374.
Staab 2006, pp. 1314.
Shipp, E. R. (July 26, 1986), "Scalia's Midwestern colleagues cite his love of debate,
poker, and piano", The New York Times, retrieved January 13, 2010
Staab 2006, p. 19.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 7374.
Biskupic 2009, p. 80.
Antonin Scalia at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain
publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
Taylor, Stuart (June 19, 1986), "Scalia's views, stylishly expressed, line up with
Reagan's", The New York Times, retrieved January 13, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 10409. Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court the following
year, but his nomination was rejected by the Senate.
Toobin 2008, p. 21.

 Wallison, Peter (2004), "Of loyalty, leaks, and the White House staff", in Wallison, Peter,
Ronald Reagan: the power of conviction and the success of his Presidency, Basic Books, p. 151,
ISBN 9780813390475.
Staab 2006, p. 24.
Biskupic, Joan (December 22, 2008), "Timing and luck crucial for seat on high court",
USA Today, retrieved February 9, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 100, 10910.
"Scalia hearings muted", The Milwaukee Journal, August 5, 1986, retrieved January 13,
2010
Biskupic 2009, p. 109.
Biskupic 2009, p. 121.
Ring 2004, pp. 4445.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 13638.
Staab 2006, pp. 7475.
Staab 2006, p. 76.
Staab 2006, pp. 7879.
Staab 2006, pp. 8082.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 32829.
Rossum 2006, pp. 8485.
Judge 'rejects Guantanamo rights', BBC News, March 27, 2006, retrieved January 29,
2010
"U.S. justices cast doubt on tribunal", The New York Times, March 28, 2006, retrieved
January 27, 2010
Greenhouse, Linda (June 30, 2006b), "The ruling on tribunals; the overview; Justices, 5
3, broadly reject Bush plan to try detainees", The New York Times, retrieved January 27, 2010
Rossum 2006, pp. 6163.
Mazzone, Jason (December 13, 2010), "Virginia v. Sebelius: Judge Hudson & Justice
Scalia", Balkinization, archived from the original on January 7, 2011, retrieved December 14,
2010
Campos, Paul (June 24, 2012). "Scalia's scary thinking". Salon.
Dorf, Michael (May 20, 2015), Is the Dormant Commerce Clause a 'Judicial Fraud'?,
Justia
Friedman, Richard D. (June 1991). "Putting the Dormancy Doctrine out of its misery".
Cardozo Law Review (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) 12 (6): 17451761. Pdf via
University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository.
Scalia, Antonin, Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland, petitioner v. Brian Wynne et
ux. (PDF), p. 33, The fundamental problem with our negative Commerce Clause cases is that the
Constitution does not contain a negative Commerce Clause...The clearest sign that the negative
Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud is the utterly illogical holding that congressional consent
enables States to enact laws that would otherwise constitute impermissible burdens upon
interstate commerce.
Rossum 2006, pp. 11012.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 979 (Scalia, J., dissenting), United States
Supreme Court, June 29, 1992, archived from the original on January 7, 2010, retrieved January
13, 2010 via FindLaw
Biskupic 2009, pp. 19395.

 Ring 2004, p. 108.

Ring 2004, p. 109.
Ring 2004, pp. 13738.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 20203.
Stone, Geoffrey (April 20, 2007), "Our Faith-Based Justices", The Huffington Post
Biskupic 2009, pp. 20304.
Ring 2004, pp. 8788.
Ring 2004, pp. 5657.
Rossum 2006, pp. 15960.
Ring 2004, p. 194.
Ring 2004, p. 195.
Ring 2004, pp. 27980.
Tushnet 2005, pp. 16769.
Ring 2004, pp. 28081.
Biskupic 2009, p. 283. There is no such clause in the Bill of Rights.
Tushnet 2005, pp. 17072.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 22527.
"Rep. Frank calls Scalia a 'homophobe' in interview", ABC News, Associated Press,
March 23, 2009, archived from the original on March 27, 2009, retrieved February 18, 2010
Dowd, Maureen (June 29, 2003), "Nino's Opra Bouffe", The New York Times, retrieved
February 18, 2010
"Justice Scalia's Majoritarian Theocracy", The New York Times, December 2, 2015
Ring 2004, p. 144.
Rossum 2006, pp. 19293.
Ring 2004, p. 148.
Toobin 2008, p. 146.
Rossum 2006, pp. 18284.
Biskupic 2009, p. 354.
Rossum 2006, pp. 18486.
Scalia was joined by Justices Thomas, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, United States Supreme Court, June 11, 2001,
retrieved January 24, 2010 via FindLaw
Rossum 2006, p. 175.
Tushnet 2005, pp. 14042.
Rossum 2006, p. 2.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/how-scalia-kept-the-little-guysout-of-court
Paul Barrett, "Justice for the Big Guys," Bloomberg News Weekly, 2-15-2016, p13.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 13536.
Biskupic 2009, p. 243.
Justice Scalia on the record, CBS News, September 14, 2007, archived from the original
on February 5, 2010, retrieved January 31, 2010
"A Conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia", Charlie Rose, June 20, 2008, archived
from the original (video) on July 5, 2009, retrieved January 31, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 34751.

 Posner, Richard (August 27, 2008), "In defense of looseness", The New Republic,
retrieved February 13, 2014
McArdle, Elaine (October 3, 2008), In inaugural Vaughan Lecture, Scalia defends the
"methodology of originalism", Harvard Law School, archived from the original on January 29,
2010, retrieved January 14, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 30405.
Liptak, Adam (December 31, 2005), "So, guy walks up to a bar and Scalia says ...", The
New York Times, retrieved January 30, 2010
Biskupic 2009, pp. 30708.
Lithwick, Dahlia (January 15, 2003), "Scalia hogs the ball", Slate, retrieved September
8, 2011
Staab 2006, p. 27.
Ring 2004, p. xi.
Clarke, Conor (July 5, 2006), "How Scalia lost his mojo", Slate, retrieved January 30,
2010
Tushnet 2006, pp. 6465.
Biskupic 2009, p. 132.
Ward, Artemus (February 2007). "Book review: The Political Thought of Justice Antonin
Scalia: A Hamiltonian of the Supreme Court by James B. Stabb". Law & Politics Book Review
(American Political Science Association) 17 (2): 96100.
Senior, Jennifer (October 14, 2013), "In conversation: Antonin Scalia", New York, p. 26
Rossum, Ralph, The textualist jurisprudence of Justice Scalia, Claremont McKenna
College, archived from the original on January 25, 2010, retrieved January 14, 2010
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 865 (Scalia, J., dissenting), United States
Supreme Court, June 29, 1988, retrieved January 13, 2010 via FindLaw
Greenhouse, Linda (May 31, 1990), "Washington talk: High Court still groping to define
due process", The New York Times, retrieved February 12, 2010
Talbot, Margaret (March 28, 2005), "Supreme confidence: The jurisprudence of Antonin
Scalia", The New Yorker, retrieved February 12, 2010
Greenhouse, Linda (June 6, 2006a), "Court to weigh race as factor in school rolls", The
New York Times, retrieved January 13, 2010
Rossum 2006, p. 44.
Rossum 2006, p. 198.
Biskupic 2009, p. 275.
Liptak, Adam (November 9, 2009), "Sidebar: From 19th Century view, desegregation is a
test", The New York Times, retrieved February 12, 2010
Nader, Ralph; Weissman, Robert (November 13, 2008), Letter to the Editor: Ralph Nader
on Scalia's "originalism", Harvard Law Record, retrieved April 29, 2014
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Scalia, J., concurring), United States
Supreme Court, January 21, 2010, archived from the original on January 27, 2010, retrieved
January 27, 2010 via FindLaw
Biskupic 2009, p. 208.
Biskupic 2009, p. 363.
Goldberg, J.J. (October 23, 2009), "Antonin Scalia's uncivil religion", The Jewish Daily
Forward, retrieved February 12, 2010
Biskupic 2009, p. 276.

 Biskupic 2009, p. 362.

Greenhouse, Linda (October 14, 2003), "Justices take case on Pledge of Allegiance's
reference to God", The New York Times, retrieved January 29, 2010
Janofsky, Michael (March 19, 2004), "Scalia refuses to take himself off Cheney case",
The New York Times, retrieved January 29, 2010
Greenhouse, Linda (June 25, 2004), "Justices' ruling postpones resolution of Cheney
case", The New York Times, retrieved January 29, 2010
Biskupic, Joan (2009), "Passions of his mind", in Biskupic, Joan, American original: the
life and constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, New York: Sarah Crichton
Books/Farrar, Straus And Giroux, p. 185, ISBN 9780374202897. Preview.
Collins, Katie (October 27, 2010), "Parish Profile: Great Falls St. Catherine of Siena",
Arlington Catholic Herald, retrieved January 5, 2016
Havill, Adrian (2002), "Mondays are for dead drops", in Havill, Adrian, The spy who
stayed out in the cold: the secret life of FBI double agent Robert Hanssen, New York: St.
Martin's Paperbacks, p. 120, ISBN 9780312986292. Preview.
Slevin, Jeremy (September 11, 2013). "Elizabeth Warren slams "pro-corporate"
Supremes". NOW with Alex Wagner (MSNBC). Retrieved November 18, 2013.
Brand, Madeline (March 30, 2006). "Justice Scalia's under-the-chin gesture". Roger
Axtell (guest). NPR. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
Boehner, John. "The Time I Tried To Persuade Antonin Scalia To Run For Vice
President". Independent Journal. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
Driscoll, Sean F. (February 14, 2016). "Scalia wed on Cape in 1960". The Cape Cod
Times. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
Biskupic 2009, pp. 3031.
Biskupic 2009, p. 361.
Melissa Chan. "Antonin Scalia: Growing Up With The Supreme Court Justice".
TIME.com.
Biskupic 2009, p. 211.
Biskupic 2009, p. 88.
Abramson, Ben; Bacon, John (February 14, 2016). "Cibolo Creek Ranch: Wildlife, movie
sets, luxury". USA Today. Retrieved February 14, 2016.
"Texas judge disclosed details about Scalia's health". The Big Story. Retrieved February
24, 2016.
Hananel, Sam; Warren, David (February 15, 2016). "Texas Judge Disclosed Details
About Scalia's Health". Associated Press. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
Warren, Brian (February 23, 2016). "Scalia suffered from many health problems".
Associated Press. Retrieved February 23, 2016.
Phelps, Jordyn (February 16, 2016). "Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court Chair and Bench
Draped in Black". ABC News. ABC. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
"Funeral for Scalia Will Be Held Saturday". The New York Times. February 17, 2016.
Gresko, Jessica (February 14, 2016). "Scalia's death in office a rarity for modern
Supreme Court". Associated Press. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
"Scalia's death shifts balance of high court, creates major election issue". Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
Chon, Gina (February 14, 2016), "Antonin Scalia's death challenges U.S. leadership.",
Reuters, retrieved February 14, 2016

 "Remarks by the President on the Passing of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia". The White House. February 13, 2016. Retrieved February 14, 2016.
"Scalia Once Suggested a Name for His Successor". C-SPAN. Retrieved 2016-02-19.
Goldstein, Tom (February 13, 2016). "What happens to this Terms close cases?
(Updated)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
Farias, Cristian (February 14, 2016). "Justice Scalia Left Undecided High-Stakes Cases
That Could Change The Nation". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
1.

Goldstein, Tom (February 14, 2016). "Tie votes will lead to reargument, not
affirmance". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2016.

Bibliography

Biskupic, Joan (2009). American original : the life and constitution of Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia. New York: Sarah Crichton Books/Farrar, Straus And Giroux.
ISBN 9780374202897.

Murphy, Bruce Allen (2014). Scalia: a court of one. New York: Simon & Schuster.
ISBN 9780743296496.

Nemacheck, Christine L. (May 21, 2008). Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of

Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press. pp. 120121. ISBN 0813927439. ISBN 978-0813927435.
Retrieved February 21, 2016.

Scalia, Antonin (2004). Ring, Kevin, ed. Scalia dissents : writings of the Supreme Court's
wittiest, most outspoken justice. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
ISBN 9780895260536.

Rossum, Ralph A. (2006). Antonin Scalia's jurisprudence: text and tradition. Lawrence,
Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700614479.

Staab, James (2006). The political thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: a Hamiltonian on
the Supreme Court. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742543119.

Toobin, Jeffrey (2008). The nine: inside the secret world of the Supreme Court (revised
ed.). New York: Anchor Books. ISBN 9781400096794.

Toobin, Jeffrey (2012), "Lawyers, guns, and money", in Toobin, Jeffrey, The oath: the
Obama White House and the Supreme Court (Hardcover ed.), New York: Doubleday,
pp. 111112, ISBN 9780385527200. Details.

Tushnet, Mark (2005). A Court divided: the Rehnquist court and the future of
constitutional law (revised ed.). New York: W.W. Norton Co. ISBN 9780393058680.

External links

Antonin Scalia at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain

publication of the Federal Judicial Center.

Antonin Scalia at Ballotpedia

Find more about
Antonin Scalia
at Wikipedia's sister projects
Media from Commons
News stories from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Data from Wikidata

Issue positions and quotes at OnTheIssues

Appearances on C-SPAN

Antonin Scalia at Goodreads

Legal offices
Preceded by
Roger Robb
Preceded by
William Rehnquist

[show]

Judicial opinions of Antonin Scalia

[show]

Supreme Court of the United States

Authority
control

WorldCat Identities

VIAF: 79211571

LCCN: n85351211

ISNI: 0000 0001 1461 9224

GND: 119217740

SUDOC: 117646571

BNF: cb15527131c (data)

MusicBrainz: c0e955fc-3100-43db-b5f3-b5a6557395d7

NKC: xx0131238

Categories:

1936 births

2016 deaths

20th-century judges

21st-century judges

American legal scholars

American people of Sicilian descent

American Traditionalist Catholics

Conservatism in the United States

Federalist Society members

Georgetown University alumni

Georgetown University Law Center faculty

Harvard Law School alumni

James Cardinal Gibbons Medal winners

Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Ohio lawyers

People from McLean, Virginia

People from Queens, New York

People from Trenton, New Jersey

Tulane University Law School faculty

United States Assistant Attorneys General

United States court of appeals judges appointed by Ronald Reagan

United States federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan

United States Supreme Court justices

University of Chicago faculty

University of Fribourg alumni

Xavier High School (New York City) alumni

Navigation menu

Not logged in

Talk

Contributions

Create account

Log in

Article

Talk

Read

Edit

View history

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Wikipedia store

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page

Tools

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item

Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable version

In other projects

Wikimedia Commons

Wikiquote

Wikisource

Languages

Afrikaans

Bn-lm-g

etina

Deutsch

Eesti

Espaol

Esperanto

Franais

Italiano

Latina

Nederlands

Norsk bokml

Occitan

Polski

Portugus

Romn

Scots

Simple English

/ srpski

Srpskohrvatski /

Suomi

Svenska

Ting Vit

Edit links

This page was last modified on 12 April 2016, at 19:06.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Cookie statement

Mobile view