Yes, your own history say you think "49% of [laywers] are terrible" and 'The most useful shorthand is "all recruiters are terrible"', believe 'The TSA is obviously terrible' and say the US supported a 'terrible Pakastani dictator'.
Here's a cut-and-dry piece by Richard A. Posner titled "The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia". Some of the choice quotes are: "OMITTING CONTRARY evidence turns out to be Scalia and Garner’s favorite rhetorical device", "Scalia and Garner are capable of reveling in absurdity", and "most professional historians reject the historical analysis in Scalia’s opinion".
For one of many given examples of incoherence, while Scalia says he is a textual originalist, "the eighteenth-century concept of freedom of speech was much narrower than the modern concept, and burning cloth is not a modern technological innovation", so why did he vote "to hold a federal statute forbidding the burning of the American flag unconstitutional"? As Posner writes, "an understanding of free speech that embraces flag burning is exceedingly unoriginalist. It is the product of freewheeling Supreme Court decisions within the last century."
Here's an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky titled "Justice Scalia: Why he's a bad influence" which starts "Justice Antonin Scalia is setting a terrible example for young lawyers. Ignore, for now, his jurisprudence, his famously strict originalism; it's his tone that's the problem." Other parts include "Such mockery does not amount to a legal argument; it's nothing more than an attack on the author's writing technique. A litigator who compared an opponent's brief to a fortune cookie likely would be, and should be, sanctioned by the court." and "Scalia's browbeating is childish, even vain; like a harshly negative book critic, he revels in his own turns of phrase. And his attitude, just like his legal theory, affects the profession as a whole."
Yes, your own history say you think "49% of [laywers] are terrible" and 'The most useful shorthand is "all recruiters are terrible"', believe 'The TSA is obviously terrible' and say the US supported a 'terrible Pakastani dictator'.
Here's a cut-and-dry piece by Richard A. Posner titled "The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia". Some of the choice quotes are: "OMITTING CONTRARY evidence turns out to be Scalia and Garner’s favorite rhetorical device", "Scalia and Garner are capable of reveling in absurdity", and "most professional historians reject the historical analysis in Scalia’s opinion".
For one of many given examples of incoherence, while Scalia says he is a textual originalist, "the eighteenth-century concept of freedom of speech was much narrower than the modern concept, and burning cloth is not a modern technological innovation", so why did he vote "to hold a federal statute forbidding the burning of the American flag unconstitutional"? As Posner writes, "an understanding of free speech that embraces flag burning is exceedingly unoriginalist. It is the product of freewheeling Supreme Court decisions within the last century."
Here's an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky titled "Justice Scalia: Why he's a bad influence" which starts "Justice Antonin Scalia is setting a terrible example for young lawyers. Ignore, for now, his jurisprudence, his famously strict originalism; it's his tone that's the problem." Other parts include "Such mockery does not amount to a legal argument; it's nothing more than an attack on the author's writing technique. A litigator who compared an opponent's brief to a fortune cookie likely would be, and should be, sanctioned by the court." and "Scalia's browbeating is childish, even vain; like a harshly negative book critic, he revels in his own turns of phrase. And his attitude, just like his legal theory, affects the profession as a whole."
I feel more well-informed by both pieces.