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.

Are you his wife or something?

(FWIW it's fine by me if he wants to retire to spend time with his family but I find it odd that he would "manage" his grown children at 78 and I'm certainly not going to think that doing so gives him a pass from getting his work done).

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.

Anonymous wrote:1) His name IS on all the decisions. He is an active participant in all the decisions. The Justices are assigned by the Chief as to who is going to write the Majority (which may become the minority over time as thinking developed)
2) Some Cert. cases do involve all the Justices conferencing. I was involving in one that was conferenced five times.
3) It is that much work. A lot. So much so that Justice Ginsburg falls asleep at oral argument:

The Justices' Caseload


The Court's caseload has increased steadily to a current total of more than 10,000 cases on the docket per Term. The increase has been rapid in recent years. In 1960, only 2,313 cases were on the docket, and in 1945, only 1,460. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is granted in about 100 cases per Term. Formal written opinions are delivered in 80 to 90 cases. Approximately 50 to 60 additional cases are disposed of without granting plenary review. The publication of a Term's written opinions, including concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and orders, approaches 5,000 pages. Some opinions are revised a dozen or more times before they are announced.

Most of this is fluff that Scalia never sees.

1) His name IS on all the decisions. He is an active participant in all the decisions. The Justices are assigned by the Chief as to who is going to write the Majority (which may become the minority over time as thinking developed)
2) Some Cert. cases do involve all the Justices conferencing. I was involving in one that was conferenced five times.
3) It is that much work. A lot. So much so that Justice Ginsburg falls asleep at oral argument:

The Justices' Caseload


The Court's caseload has increased steadily to a current total of more than 10,000 cases on the docket per Term. The increase has been rapid in recent years. In 1960, only 2,313 cases were on the docket, and in 1945, only 1,460. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is granted in about 100 cases per Term. Formal written opinions are delivered in 80 to 90 cases. Approximately 50 to 60 additional cases are disposed of without granting plenary review. The publication of a Term's written opinions, including concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and orders, approaches 5,000 pages. Some opinions are revised a dozen or more times before they are announced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't have personal experience, maybe you shouldn't post. This should give you an example of the volume of cases that pass through the court every year. It's not just about writing a majority opinion. This link doesn't even mention the time spent on conferences decided which of the 10,000 cert. petitions to grant (1-2% of the 10,000). http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dlawngarden&field-keywords=green+patio+cushions

1. Scalia doesn't have to write 100 opinions. He wrote 13 last year including dissents and concurrences. He is very hands-on with them.
2. Decisions to grant cert do not take that much time. Most of them are frivolous and never see the majority of the justices.
3. Its not that much work. It just isn't. If you sign an opinion, you read it.

Face it the guy screwed up, and on citing his own case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't have personal experience, maybe you shouldn't post. This should give you an example of the volume of cases that pass through the court every year. It's not just about writing a majority opinion. This link doesn't even mention the time spent on conferences decided which of the 10,000 cert. petitions to grant (1-2% of the 10,000). http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dlawngarden&field-keywords=green+patio+cushions

Green patio cushions?

PP is going a bit overboard and has his facts wrong.

First, this was the last week of arguments for the year but the Court will continue issuing decisions until about the last week in June. So that's two full months.

Second, 70 total cases were argued this year, of which 32 remain to be decided. Scalia has written 6 majority opinions, which is more than all the Justices other than Sotomayor, who also wrote 6. Ordinarily they opinions are pretty evenly distributed, so Scalia probably has 2 more majority opinions at best.

Third, the Court does receive around 10,000 certiorari petitions per year, but about 8,000 - 8,500 of them come from prisoners who are acting as their own lawyer and have no merit whatsoever. Also, all of the Justices except Alito participate in the "cert pool," which works this way: one law clerk reads each cert petition and writes a memo for all the Justices in the pool, recommending whether to grant or deny. The Justices meet in conference every week or two during the Term, but they do not discuss every cert. petition. Instead, theChief circulates a "discuss list" and other Justices can add cases to the list. If it's not on that list, the case is denied without any discussion.

I'm not saying being a Justice is an easy job or that they should never make mistakes. But don't make it out to be a sweatshop either. It's an embarrassing mistake, but less embarrassing than some things the Court has done on purpose.

(Cou-itizen'sunited-gh)

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't have personal experience, maybe you shouldn't post. This should give you an example of the volume of cases that pass through the court every year. It's not just about writing a majority opinion. This link doesn't even mention the time spent on conferences decided which of the 10,000 cert. petitions to grant (1-2% of the 10,000). http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dlawngarden&field-keywords=green+patio+cushions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No he's not. I know him personally and his opinions as well. Give me examples and I'll tell you why they are not inconsistent. You probably don't understand federalism.

OK, he's a textual originalist who despises using legislative history, and yet he wrote Heller. And how about that expansive use of Commerce in Gonzales v. Raich? Come on! He loves guns, hates pot. There it is. At least Thomas has integrity.

This is supposed to be a coherent argument?

If you understood the opinions I cited, yes, you would understand. I shouldn't have to elaborate to someone as well-versed in the law as you pretend to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No he's not. I know him personally and his opinions as well. Give me examples and I'll tell you why they are not inconsistent. You probably don't understand federalism.

OK, he's a textual originalist who despises using legislative history, and yet he wrote Heller. And how about that expansive use of Commerce in Gonzales v. Raich? Come on! He loves guns, hates pot. There it is. At least Thomas has integrity.

This is supposed to be a coherent argument?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No he's not. I know him personally and his opinions as well. Give me examples and I'll tell you why they are not inconsistent. You probably don't understand federalism.

OK, he's a textual originalist who despises using legislative history, and yet he wrote Heller. And how about that expansive use of Commerce in Gonzales v. Raich? Come on! He loves guns, hates pot. There it is. At least Thomas has integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Educate thyself. Here's the real volume SCOTUS is handling. http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspx

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No he's not. I know him personally and his opinions as well. Give me examples and I'll tell you why they are not inconsistent. You probably don't understand federalism.

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.

+1000

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.

I completely agree with you that everyone makes mistakes, and Supreme Court justices have made much worse ones (like, say, Citizens United).

Scalia does know administrative law but he doesn't know much about air modeling, which was the issue at the core of this case.