The judicial 'odd couple'.

• Author: Kozinski, Alex
• Position: US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Reinhardt's influence

Sometimes I can't tell if we're Bonnie and Clyde, or Coke and Pepsi. When I first joined the bench, we were more like David and Goliath. Now he'd call me "Death" and I'd call him "Taxes," of that I'm certain. Or maybe "Cut" and "Paste"--you be the judge of who's who. One way or another, after twenty-five years on the Ninth Circuit together, there's no Kozinski without Reinhardt.

I am indebted to Judge Reinhardt. He makes my job easier in a lot of ways. For instance, when he writes an opinion, I rarely need to read it to know that it will be a good candidate for rehearing en banc. Further, when speaking on a panel with him, as part of our traveling road show, I can always pre-prepare my remarks to start with "Yah, on opposite day." If asked about the Ninth Circuit's high reversal rate, I can reply that the rate is the same as that of other circuits if you exclude Reinhardt opinions. And dissenting from his disquisitions requires only that I look to the text of the relevant statute and see what it actually says, or maybe just read the Supreme Court opinion that's directly on point. All of this time saved has allowed me to stay up to date on the latest, trendiest articles in The Yale Law Journal.

But it's not always rainbows and butterflies here on the Ninth. Sometimes Judge Reinhardt makes me work extra hard. Disagreeing with Reinhardt is like wrestling a crocodile. For example, I recall fondly when he wrote a special concurring opinion to his own majority, just to disagree with my dissent:

Judge Kozinski's separate dissent requires separate comment. In the latest chapter of his crusade against the use of languages other than English in public, it is what Judge Kozinski does not say that is most revealing.... .... Judge Kozinski trots out a parade of horribles that he insists will come to haunt us if we do not accept his absolutist, authoritarian view. All his examples are absurd. No court in this country would protect a government employee who adopted one of the outlandish stances that Judge Kozinski so casuistically suggests. Were we to withhold rights from individuals because clever judges could conjure up hypothetical examples of frivolous law suits, there would soon be no rights left at all. Scare tactics are hardly a novel technique in my talented colleague's arsenal of en banc dissents. (1) Now that's what I call incisive legal reasoning! At least he acknowledged I was clever and talented, but I'm not convinced he meant it.

I haven't...