Turning the Tables: NLJ's Veteran SCOTUS Reporters Remember Scalia

Beth Frerking: We’ve all read and heard a lot about how Justice Scalia’s sharp mind and creative opinions pushed others in ways good and bad. How do you think Scalia’s absence will most affect the court’s dynamics during oral arguments and decision-writing?

Mauro: We’ve heard oral arguments before Scalia came on. Usually they were pretty sleepy affairs. Several justices asked very few questions, and lawyers got used to giving speeches. That changed completely when Scalia came on. He asked numerous questions—wasn’t shy about being the freshman—and just totally changed things. Without him—of course a lot of the others justices are talkative now, too—it will, I am sure, change.

Coyle: There will be just as many questions. It will still be a hot bench. But the back and forth between justices won’t be the same as when Justice Scalia was on the bench. Because then it was often sharp, quick-witted, full of humor. I don’t think there is anyone on the bench who could do it the same way in which Justice Scalia could do it. With Justice Scalia, I think, a dynamic arose in which you saw the justices talking more to each other through their questions than simply talking to the lawyer who was making the argument. I don’t believe that’s going to change. But I think it’s not going to be as much fun without him.

Frerking: Which two or three cases will you be most sorry, from a reporter’s standpoint, not to have Scalia weighing in on? In which cases would you turn to each other and say, “I wonder what Scalia would have said about that?”