|
In the New York Times today, Ann Althouse decries "Scalito" comparisons on the grounds that Alito and Scalia differ on some substantive issues, such as freedom of religious observance. I would agree that Alito is no Scalia, but not for the rather narrow reasons that Althouse gives. Rather, Alito is no Scalia in the same sense that Thomas is no Scalia – neither seems to have the intellectual range, depth, and playfulness that Scalia is renowned for.
Scalia loves a good argument, and just in case he doesn't get enough in court, he makes sure he always has a liberal clerk so that he can have one in the comfort of his own chambers. Thomas and Alito, on the other hand, are more methodical – one might almost say plodding. I very much doubt we'll see much in the way of Scalia-style pyrotechnics in Alito's dissents, assuming he's confirmed. And I certainly doubt that Alito will ever pen magazine articles like this one, wherein Scalia stilettoes with great relish a new book from a San Diego law professor.
None of which is a reason for opposing Alito, of course – for good reasons to oppose Alito, go read Lithwick. But I do think that jurisprudence at its highest level does demand a nimble intelligence. Scalia has that, Thomas does not, and, as for Alito, I suspect he's somewhere in between.