re: #413 kirkspencer

I’m an odd duck in that even though I’m not in the law profession I like to read legal decisions. That’s context for the following:

For some years now I’ve found Scalia’s written opinions odd. As in not the representation of a brilliant legal mind. As in poor reflections of what he was writing as little as a decade ago. Though this mistake is the most blatant, it’s far from the first time he’s mis-remembered (or misinterpreted) something. More and more frequently he’s introduced opinion as precedent or fact. His opinions - dissent, concurrence, and even decisions - have had nonsequitors and irrelevant points within them.

In addition to this he’s been more, well, abrasively confrontational (for justices) - while particularly to the women and other liberals, he’s turned his tongue on all his peers at one time or another recently.

I honestly wonder if Scalia is suffering from one of the mental problems of the aged (he’s 78). If so, I suspect it’ll be well after the damage is done that we’ll know.

In support of your theory - the justices have clerks to double check all of their case cites. The fact that he is (presumably) refusing to listen to his clerks argues … a problem.