Antonin+Scalia

Name: Antonin Scalia Date of Birth: March 11th, 1936 Current Age: 72 Date of Appointment: September 26, 1986 Appointed by: Ronald Reagan

Early life: **Born In:** Trenton, NJ, **Mother:** Cathy Panaro, **Father:** Eugene Scalia, **Roman Catholic**, **Middle-Class**. Education: Harvard Law School Legal/Political Career prior to serving on the US Supreme Court: Began career at Jones, Day, Cockly and Reavis in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961 to 1967, before serving as professor of law at University of Virginia in 1967. 1972 to 1974 he served as Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Served as Assistant Attorney General for the Ford Administration. Reagan appointed him in 1982 as the Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit. Reagan nominates Scalia to replace William Rehnquist as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Friends/Family/Mentors/Experiences that could have shaped your justice's views: His wife, his strong beleif in Catholicism
 * Personal History**

Voting Record: Strong Conservative Decisions: Evans v. Chavis--- Reginald Chavis was convicted of murder, so he filed this thing called a writ of habeas corpus which means in order to convict him they have to produce a body in California court. After the California Court of Appeal denied Chavis' petition, he was patient for more than three years before appealing the decision to the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition without explanation.-louis When a state court denies a habeas petition summarily, without explanation, does the time that a defendant spent filing that petition count toward the one-year statute of limitations in federal habeas appeals under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act?-  //Majority   // conclusion yes   <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(149, 184, 35);"> <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; background-color: rgb(136, 255, 0);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(149, 184, 35);">Ash v. Tyson Foods--- There was this African American named ash who thought he had been overlooked on purpose by tyson foods for a promotion. However Tyson foods claimed that they gave the job to more qualified employee. The evidence ash supported was insignificant and his case was dropped. He then Told the court that his employer refered to him as "Boy" perhaps being racial. Questions (1) Did the Circuit Court use the right standard of evidence for establishing that an employer's reason for a hiring decision is not the real one? <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; background-color: rgb(136, 255, 0);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(149, 184, 35);">(2) Can an employer's use of the word "boy" to refer to an employee ever be evidence of racial animus?-louis Majority conclusion no and yes <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; background-color: rgb(136, 255, 0);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(149, 184, 35);"> <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; background-color: rgb(136, 255, 0);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(149, 184, 35);"><span style="color: rgb(16, 16, 15);">Brown v. Sanders A California trial court sentenced Sanders to death for murder. The jury was told to remember four special aggravating situations during sentencing. On appeal, however, the state supreme court made an arguement on two of these situations, but still upheld Sanders's sentence. Sanders then filed a federal habeas petition, which was rejected by the district court but granted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In overturning Sanders's sentence, it held that the sentence had been substantially affected by jury instructions to consider invalid aggravating circumstances. The Ninth Circuit faulted the state supreme court for its standard of review: The court should have determined whether the invalid circumstances were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in affecting the jury's sentence.- louis
 * US Supreme Court Career**

question--->Was the Eighth Amendment violated when the California Supreme Court upheld a death sentence even though two of the four special aggravating circumstances considered by the jury were found to be invalid? conclusion no-louis   <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(149, 184, 35);"> <span style="color: rgb(175, 49, 49);">**Texas vs. Johnson** - In 1984, Gregory Johnson participated in a demonstration during which he took an Amerian flag off of one of the targeted buildings and burned it while screaming anti-American phrases. Johnson was sentanced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000, for vandilizing respected objects. The Supreme Court used Tinker vs. School Board to decide whether the flag burning was an expression of speach, as in the First Ammendment. The question was then whether or not Texas' ban on flag-burning was a violation of the First Ammendment. The Supreme Court voted 5 - 4 against the ban. **St. Paul, Minnesota** ban on hate crimes (R.A.V vs. St. Paul) - during a demonstration, R.A.V burned a cross in a black neighbor's front yard. R.A.V was charged under violation of St. Paul Ban on Bais-Motivated Crime, which protects against acts of burning or veiwing of objects or material that may cause others discomfort. The court ruled that the Ban was unconstitutional because it kept people from speaking their veiws on race, religion, equality, etc.- ; **Casey vs. Planned Parenthood of Southeaster Pennsylvania -** The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act limits rights to abortion in such ways as having a pregnant wife ask her husband before getting an abortion, a pregnant minor getting consent from her parents, the woman seeking the abortion must give an informed consent and receive information about the procedure 24 hours prior to the abortion, a minor must get a judicial bypass if not able to get a parent/guardian consent, all acts must be followed EXEPT in rare cases in which the woman's health is jeopardized. <span style="color: rgb(53, 106, 187);"> Judicial Philosophy/Ideology: [What have you learned about your justice's views based on his voting record and decisions? Write it here.] when there is a case about giving the death penalty he normally sides with the court but in the case of the company and employee he sided with the individual. He also believes in State's Rights. <span style="color: rgb(253, 8, 88);">

<span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);"> **http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/**** <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia**<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238);"> __http://www.answers.com/topic/antonin-scalia__