Anonymous wrote:All human beings make errors; I respectfully submit that Justice Scalia makes far fewer than you do. Agree or disagree with him, Scalia is a very accomplished jurist and a legitimate expert in administrative law.

How on earth would you even know how many mistakes I make?? I respectfully submit that your reasoning is comparable to Scalia's. I guess you will take that as a compliment.

This sequence of events gives EPA all the more of a mandate. An overwhelming decision in their favor, and the meager dissent couldn't even get their facts straight.

Time for the fossil fuel lobby to go sit in the corner and shut up.

All human beings make errors; I respectfully submit that Justice Scalia makes far fewer than you do. Agree or disagree with him, Scalia is a very accomplished jurist and a legitimate expert in administrative law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that he didn't proofread it?

I'm saying he doesn't have time. An unfortunately miss but the other clerks - maybe one who has a better grasp of the Justice's opinions - should have caught it.

On a case involving the regulatory authority of the EPA over states? The guy wrote 13 opinions last year, including all of his concurrences and dissents. I think he can read one a month. BTW Scalia is known for being very involved in his drafting.

Not on a dissent and you well know they are issuing 100s of opinions right now and next month.

The court does not issue nearly that many actual written opinions. Last year the total for all of SCOTUS was 41.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that he didn't proofread it?

I'm saying he doesn't have time. An unfortunately miss but the other clerks - maybe one who has a better grasp of the Justice's opinions - should have caught it.

On a case involving the regulatory authority of the EPA over states? The guy wrote 13 opinions last year, including all of his concurrences and dissents. I think he can read one a month. BTW Scalia is known for being very involved in his drafting.

Not on a dissent and you well know they are issuing 100s of opinions right now and next month.

I don't know that, and you don't seem to know much either. The court has heard less than 100 cases per year for the last 20 years. This year they granted about 70, and they've already handed down decisions in about 40 cases. So really there are about 30 cases left to be decided between now and the end of June. Writing decisions is one of the few things a Supreme Court justice actually does, and I find it hard to believe that anyone but Justice Scalia himself would write such a snarky opinion ("look ma no hands") so it's no good blaming the law clerks.

. . on which he has his name on every single opinion. 120 to 180 per year. Plus they are hearing oral arguments in the morning. This is the time of the year when all the opinions come out in a rush before the close of court. You can't expect perfection from 9 justices x 4 clerks each x 100s of redrafts and 100s of administrators. If you've ever studied con law you know there are even some cases in which the Justices wrote the majority opinion, which later became the dissent and the original majority writer was so mad he didn't even change the language of the dissent. The Chief had taken the majority opinion away from the original Justice. So the dissent still starts with "The Court today decides the question of ........" Lots of behind-the-scenes politics we know nothing about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that he didn't proofread it?

I'm saying he doesn't have time. An unfortunately miss but the other clerks - maybe one who has a better grasp of the Justice's opinions - should have caught it.

On a case involving the regulatory authority of the EPA over states? The guy wrote 13 opinions last year, including all of his concurrences and dissents. I think he can read one a month. BTW Scalia is known for being very involved in his drafting.

Not on a dissent and you well know they are issuing 100s of opinions right now and next month.

Scalia is winging it.

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with most of his ruling, or his general judicial view, but I have met him and I have to admit that the guy is very, very intelligent.

He is strikingly inconsistent. Thomas is consistent, but Scalia is just writing whatever fits his personal beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that he didn't proofread it?

I'm saying he doesn't have time. An unfortunately miss but the other clerks - maybe one who has a better grasp of the Justice's opinions - should have caught it.

On a case involving the regulatory authority of the EPA over states? The guy wrote 13 opinions last year, including all of his concurrences and dissents. I think he can read one a month. BTW Scalia is known for being very involved in his drafting.

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that he didn't proofread it?

I'm saying he doesn't have time. An unfortunately miss but the other clerks - maybe one who has a better grasp of the Justice's opinions - should have caught it.

I don't agree with most of his ruling, or his general judicial view, but I have met him and I have to admit that the guy is very, very intelligent.

Are you saying that he didn't proofread it?

Law school 101: In April and May the court issues a tranche of opinions of lesser merit that it has been working on all year and then goes on break for the summer. 100s of decisions are issued right now and will be through May. Each Justice has four new law graduates doing their less important work and drafting. While bright, these law students know just about the same Con Law as any other man on the street and they certainly don't know their history because they are 25 year-olds. They write the dissents. This was a law clerk error. Scalia is 100% still there.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/scalia-gets-his-facts-wrong-in-epa-dissent/2014/04/30/3d73670a-d09b-11e3-a714-be7e7f142085_story.html

The guy can't accurately interpret the opinions that he himself wrote. How can he possibly interpret the constitution?