I never particularly liked Justice Scalia.

I staunchly disagree with the majority of his opinions regarding social issues, and I have an unnerving feeling that Dick Cheney was holding some puppet strings throughout the man’s entire career. (In January 2004, Scalia took a free ride on Vice President Cheney’s plane to go duck hunting with him; later, he refused to recuse himself in a major case involving Cheney.)

With that being said, I believe that every Supreme Court Justice deserves respect. Scalia was a quick-witted and linguistically savvy devotee of the Constitution. He never failed to entertain and often surprised conservatives who presumed he would be a sympathetic ear.

There were more than a handful of cases in which Scalia did not agree with our nation’s framers. But he respected them and honored what they built.

In one case involving DNA searches, Scalia wrote a scathing dissent to the court’s ruling in favor of Maryland police, which allowed law enforcement officers to collect and store DNA from any arrestee.

“…the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

That’s why I also believe that Scalia’s face should be removed from liberal dartboards — because although some may not agree with Justice Scalia, we must honor what he built and the institution in which he served.

To be honest, I’m going to miss Scalia’s witty repartee (and melodious tenor) throughout the upcoming cases in the Supreme Court docket, and I’m curious to see how capitalism and industry fare without (arguably) their greatest supporter.

In the short term, outcomes that were essentially decided in many of these cases are now up in the air. In the long term, the court is without, as Forbes puts it, “the passionate pen Scalia often deployed on the side of business.”

Spokeo

Spokeo, a “people search” website that sells information on individuals, incorrectly listed data on a man named Thomas Robins. The site represented Robins as having more education and being more financially successful than was accurate. Although this mistake actually benefitted Robins, he filed a suit against Spokeo for the misrepresentation.

The Spokeo case, while focused on a single firm, has profound effects on the larger technology sector, companies’ rights, and an individual’s right to attack businesses with a class action lawsuit.

(Just a few reasons why companies like Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), Facebook (NASDAQ: FB), and Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) are keeping a close eye on the case’s progress.)

The question at hand:

Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.

In layman’s terms, a “yes” answer to this question would significantly impact how companies are legally allowed to handle a consumer’s data and personal information. Individuals would be able to file lawsuits against companies that they felt were mishandling their personal information, even if those individuals are unable to prove that they suffered “concrete” personal or financial harm.

This basically opens Pandora’s box on class action suits, a process which Scalia historically made more difficult to instigate.

Fossil Fuels

Earlier this month, the Justices voted along ideological lines (5–4) to temporarily stymie the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which mandates a shift from coal-powered electricity to renewable energy.

The request, which was brought by 27 different states and businesses, is a huge blow to the United States’ goal of meeting the reduced emissions target presented at the Paris climate talks last year.

The Clean Power Plan required each state to submit a renewable energy plan along with an emission-reduction target to the EPA by September of 2016.

“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues.”

— Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General

In the most technical sense, the ruling was in regards to an abuse of authority on the part of the Obama administration.

But let’s be honest: this ruling is about energy and fuel. It’s the next episode of the battle saga between fossil and renewable.

The court’s decision delayed the country’s transition to renewables… for now. 

With an eight-judge panel, 4–4 rulings will revert back to the decisions of the lower courts. 

The justice who replaces Scalia could easily tip the scales on this one, and it’s impossible to overstate that impact on businesses in both realms of the energy sector… and elsewhere.

Ultimately, predicting the atmosphere of the Supreme Court sans-Scalia is futile until the next justice is appointed. 

For now, both sides of the aisle in both the public and private spheres will be forced to remain idle until decisions are finalized. 

I, for one, believe that we should use this time to mourn Scalia — regardless of which end of the political spectrum you may fall on. 

Take a page out of Ginsburg’s book. Although they disagreed on almost every single ruling and lived on very different sides of the political aisle, Justice Ginsburg reacted to Scalia’s death with grace, admiration, and respect: 

“…We are different, we are one. Different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve… He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh… He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.”

If you won’t mourn the man, mourn the position and the public service.

R.I.P. Antonin Scalia.

{$custom_ptt_jessica_signoff}