. . .
LS2 “Scalia has gone feral.”
LS1 “In the past, he demanded that the Court and the courts construe congressional language in a statute or provision literally – or as he defined literally – even in the face of clear contrary legislative intent and then took great delight in often perverse or unintended consequences or interpretations.”
LS2 “Now he is transforming the High Court into a MegaCongress to proclaim what he thinks animated Congress when it passed legislation. In the face of crystal clear Congressional language and equally clear legislative intent regarding the Voting Rights Act, he appointed himself to second guess Congress and impose his personal prejudices on the populace.”
LS1 “At least he is blatant and blunt about it. In his capacity as the Law Czar, however, he surely will not allow a person to bring and maintain a claim to instate the Move To Amend legislation on the ground that Congress would have passed the legislation except for the overweening influence of corporations.”
LS2 “That’s a new possibility. Introduce a bill in the Supreme Court and let them pass judgment. Two can play that game, yet only one person is allowed to play the game in the American legal game.”
. . .
LS2 “His great contribution to legal thinking is a grand sophistry. ‘Originalism’ is an admixture of equal parts hypocrisy, dishonesty, perversity and absurdity.”
LS1 “And risibility, but it is a serious matter. He is becoming even more grating and obnoxious. Sarcasm is the first cousin of anger. He is angry. Ergo, he is sarcastic.”
LS2 “Sourcaustic. In contemporary patois, Scalia is a bully of the worst kind. A bully and a coward. He uses the bench as a bully pulpit and then cowers behind the guards and security detail.”
LS1 “If someone asked him to step outside, Scalia would soil his panties and then curl up in a fetal position and cry for help.”
LS2 “He should take senior status and take over a hate radio show on Anger Mongering (AM) radio.”
LS1 “A festschrift of his proclamations does not require more than a few hundred words. He is worth a footnote perhaps but much less than a chapter. Someone, probably a former fawning law clerk, will spawn a 900 page idolatrous hagiographic piece.”
. . .
LS1/LS2 “He fails to realize that civility is not unconstitutional.”
. . .
[LS1 = Legal Scholar 1; . . . ]
[See the “e-ssays” titled One Gun Per White Adult Male? A Flintlock Musket? The “One Man, One Gun” Decision (October 4, 2010), Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011) and The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative And Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012), three of the “First Monday in October” commentaries on the Supreme Court.]
Bumper stickers of the week:
I don’t like some lawyers because some lawyers are not likable.
Do Supreme Court Justices get rabies shots?
e-commentary 