Replies

That is a technique I have seen on various FR threads - “You must be a child rapist to defend the constitutional rights of FLDS”, eg.

The difference being that usually Scalia follows his statement with logical analysis that at least comes close to proving the point.

Justice O'Connor had an unfortunate tendency sometimes to state propositions with incomplete truth conditions. Seemingly true but incomplete in contextual logic. Scalia (rightly) eviscerated Justice O'Connor on those occasions.

Justice Scalia has very little tolerance for torturing phrases until they bear no relation to reality in order to make them mean what you want them to mean. He has very little tolerance for statements that have no weight other than the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is saying them.

You see that in today's dissent. The arguments made by the dissenters are more like whining than logical debate.

Some of the dissenting arguments are almost childlike.....such as the concept that the 2nd Amendment cannot be an individual right because the founders would not have limited the government's tools to prevent kids from hurting themselves. 1) the two don't go together....2) the founders limited government in many other ways that could also be claimed to increase "danger". The founders were more interested in protecting us from government than from our own defensive weapons...this is a fact. Claims to the contrary deserve to be blasted and those who make them also...because they are not interpreting law, they are trying to reach a political end they agree with.

Scalia is not perfect. He often has the same type blind spots in the case of property rights, law and order, and property seizures. In this case though...mad hatter is mild terminology.