American Government and Scalia Replacement Research

Scalia Replacement
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Date:

Scalia Replacement
In the three decades that the Supreme Court justice has served, he has come out as one with an outsize personality. Relative to the fact that he is a justice who has embraced transformative legal theories and vivid writing he came out as a leader of the conservative intellectual renaissance(Martin, 2016). His passing at the age of 79 at a resort in West Texas, was a shock to many of his colleagues and those in the political class. However, his death has also led to some political outfalls that are showing cracks in the senate, where the republicans are not ready to confirm any candidates that are nominated by the president Obama before his term is over(Martin, 2016). As such, his death has brought on some political division, some of which are riding on the climate surrounding the republicans’ motives.
Although the justice began his career as an outsider, over the years he build his career and reputation, despite caustic dissents and even managing to alienate some of the political allies. For the better part of his career most of the political and even colleagues viewed his ideas as idiosyncratic. With time however, most of his ideas became well received and received a much needed recognition for their radical nature and originality(Martin, 2016). One of the most outstanding elements that was common in all of his career, was that he was always advocating for the correct interpretation of the constitution as it was intended by those that ratified the constitution in the first place. Always seeking to understand what those that ratified the constitution meant. One of the aspects that could be at the eye of the republicans debate for their firm stand against the president nominating another justice while in office, is that Scalia, in most of the cases tended to bring out outcomes that pleased the conservative although not always.
There is a peculiar element that marks his legacy in the many years that he handled criminal law. At the heart of most of his cases, he always tried to help the criminal defendants relative to sentencing and with reference to the elements of cross examination of the witnesses called for the cases. He did not like the idea of using legislative history, where certain cases have been decided in the past. Most of the justices have always relied on the historical determinations of the various cases that resemble those they are currently handling(Martin, 2016). In the case of Scalia, he liked to determine every case on its own merits other than liken it to other past cases.He also did not like the idea of taking up statements from the members of congress on what the laws’ purposes were. This is a common element of the congress trying to control the way that the laws are interpreted. From most of the cases that he handled and even the laws that were brought on board, he was never an advocate of laws that seemed vague. Especially, where the laws did not give the criminals a fair warning of what was criminal and what was not a criminal conduct. As such, he was a strong advocate of laws that clearly gave the cases balance and further gave the lowers courts clear guide...