We've just seen Cranky Antonin Scalia overrule Previous Antonin Scalia on the proper way to handle conflicting language within a law: 'In textual interpretation, context is everything." And more specifically, the Scalia dissent that was quoted and cited by Roberts in support of yesterday's majority opinion: "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."
So why would it be a surprise that Justice Scalia also parts company with Previous Antonin Scalia on professional courtroom demeanor? "Don't show indignation at ... at the feeble and misleading arguments raised by opposing counsel. Describing that treatment and dissecting those arguments calmly and dispassionately will affect the court quite as much. ...Ideally, you should evoke rather than display indignation.”
4 comments:
We're fucked...
We've just seen Cranky Antonin Scalia overrule Previous Antonin Scalia on the proper way to handle conflicting language within a law: 'In textual interpretation, context is everything." And more specifically, the Scalia dissent that was quoted and cited by Roberts in support of yesterday's majority opinion: "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."
So why would it be a surprise that Justice Scalia also parts company with Previous Antonin Scalia on professional courtroom demeanor?
"Don't show indignation at ... at the feeble and misleading arguments raised by opposing counsel. Describing that treatment and dissecting those arguments calmly and dispassionately will affect the court quite as much. ...Ideally, you should evoke rather than display indignation.”
As things turned out, Scalia's response to Burwell was only the second whiniest dissent he wrote this week.
Justice Roberts' plaintive "Just who do we think we are?" wins the week.
Meaning of "marriage" = established.
Meaning of "State" defined as "one of the States and the District of Columbia" = ambiguous.
Post a Comment