Scalia Can't Accurately Read Scalia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right. Let's see you do all he does at 78, while doing this caseload,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States, and managing 9 grown children and over 48 grandchildren.

If he's managing nine grown children, then he really screwed up somewhere along the line. They should be on their own and actually parenting, not managing, the grandchildren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. Let's see you do all he does at 78, while doing this caseload,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States, and managing 9 grown children and over 48 grandchildren.

If he's managing nine grown children, then he really screwed up somewhere along the line. They should be on their own and actually parenting, not managing, the grandchildren.

No need for the snark. You know exactly what was meant. He's a highly successfull, accomplished, much admired human being. We all make mistakes. Just stop piling on. Ginsburg is falling over and asleep most the time. These Justices are old. Just be kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. Let's see you do all he does at 78, while doing this caseload,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States, and managing 9 grown children and over 48 grandchildren.

If he's managing nine grown children, then he really screwed up somewhere along the line. They should be on their own and actually parenting, not managing, the grandchildren.

No need for the snark. You know exactly what was meant. He's a highly successfull, accomplished, much admired human being. We all make mistakes. Just stop piling on. Ginsburg is falling over and asleep most the time. These Justices are old. Just be kind.

I have no idea what was meant. Are you seriously suggesting that having children and grandchildren is detracting from his ability to do his job? I agree that we all make mistakes, but not sure why you need to bring his grandchildren or Justice Ginsburg into this (much less the question of whether he is "much admired").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. Let's see you do all he does at 78, while doing this caseload,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States, and managing 9 grown children and over 48 grandchildren.

If he's managing nine grown children, then he really screwed up somewhere along the line. They should be on their own and actually parenting, not managing, the grandchildren.

No need for the snark. You know exactly what was meant. He's a highly successfull, accomplished, much admired human being. We all make mistakes. Just stop piling on. Ginsburg is falling over and asleep most the time. These Justices are old. Just be kind.

You will pardon me if I do not stipulate to the "much admired human being" part.

I'm sorry but the guy is not in the least humble, nor is he tolerant of the mistakes of others. He makes quite a big deal of himself, unlike many other justices. You are asking to cut a break that he himself would not do for anyone else in his position. He is inconsistent in his philosophy and apparently sloppy as well. He should take a cue from Thomas. There is a guy whose philosophy I do not like. But I can respect his incredible consistency and his reserve.

[Anonymous]

Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism. One day he'll write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing, and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

He's an originalist who wrote Heller. How was that not clear last time? He believes in limited government but was happy to read interstate commerce into a case about state level medical marijuana. I assume you know what this is about. Do I need to elaborate more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

He's an originalist who wrote Heller. How was that not clear last time? He believes in limited government but was happy to read interstate commerce into a case about state level medical marijuana. I assume you know what this is about. Do I need to elaborate more?

"Originalist" only in the sense that he makes it all up as he goes along.

[Anonymous]

Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism. One day he'll write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing, and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court follows Scalia on the Fourth amendment, including Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan. See, e.g., April 29th: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/. I can also provide you with articles in which Ginsburg says Scalia is right on fourth amendment issues. Would you like that one too?[b]

[Anonymous]

WaPO: The liberal partisan attacks on Scalia after the court issued the quiet change in the opinon were "thunderous" "bombastic" and "partisan". That's quite a lot coming from Bob Barnes. But that's what all liberal journalism has become today, as well as OP's original post: it's all about the politics of personal destruction.

[Anonymous]

As a former SCOTUS clerk (not for Scalia), this probably would count as clerk error. Your job is to get details in the opinion right - not close ... actually right. But it's a long hard year and because you assume every other clerk in history has been as careful, you would tend to accept facts from a previous Court opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPO: The liberal partisan attacks on Scalia after the court issued the quiet change in the opinon were "thunderous" "bombastic" and "partisan". That's quite a lot coming from Bob Barnes. But that's what all liberal journalism has become today, as well as OP's original post: it's all about the politics of personal destruction.

Really weren't the conservatives on this site criticizing an error of a liberal justice just last month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

oh, bob Barnes said it so now everyone must agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPO: The liberal partisan attacks on Scalia after the court issued the quiet change in the opinon were "thunderous" "bombastic" and "partisan". That's quite a lot coming from Bob Barnes. But that's what all liberal journalism has become today, as well as OP's original post: it's all about the politics of personal destruction.

Really weren't the conservatives on this site criticizing an error of a liberal justice just last month?

No, we're talking about the liberal media creating a firestorm over nothing. Just as OP has done here.