This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, July 5th, 2016.

I'm Caleb Brown.

One aspect of Anton and Scalia's jurisprudence that's largely been overlooked.

This is relatively consistent advocacy on behalf of

the rights of criminal defendants.

Kevin Ring is author of Scalia's court, a legacy of landmark opinions and dissents, we spoke today.

Last year after Johnson v. United States

was decided, Michael Mago wrote in the LA Times and this is the headline here.

Justice Antonin and Scalia parentheses, yes Scalia rules for a criminal defendant.

And it's interesting that this is the headline because if anybody

had more than a passing familiarity with the jurisprudence of Anton and Scalia you you would say, well, that's not actually that surprising.

No, that's right. I think one of the least things known about him was what a strong jurist he

was for criminal defendants, and it's for all the reasons people

chastise him his textualism, his belief that the Constitution protects certain rights

and liberties and not others. He thought the Bill of Rights was clear

about what protections that a criminal defendant had.

And so to the extent that they were in there in text, when you had the right to a jury trial,

when you had the right to be protected from a reasonable search and seizure,

he would protect those diligently more than other justices because he believed in giving

them their full sort of value.

And so in case after case, as you know, and many don't, that made him a leader in criminal

defendants' rights.

...