I can't imagine a US Supreme Court Justice dispensing legal advice advice to a potential plaintiff at his book signing. He has to know that this very act would be used against him as a conflict of interest. Furthermore what type of lawyer would publicize this info knowing at the very least it could be used as grounds for recusal. To believe her story is to believe Scalia to be an incompetent justice who decides which cases to hear from customers at a book signing.
My thoughts exactly. I don't believe Taitz if what WND says is true, and I am always suspicious of WND material. So two strikes really.
Absolutely agree 100%. SC Justices are so painfully carefull about not commenting on cases that are before the court, or that have even the most remote possibility of comming before the court. There is NO WAY that a man as sharp as Scalia said this. It is an absolute fabrication.
That was my initial reaction. But then Taitz (as quoted by WND), gives such a detailed description of what transpired. On reflection I think you are probably right. Which can only mean that Taitz is a pathological liar. I don't know enough about her to know if there is any other evidence for this.
Of course if there were really 300 other people at this event, surely someone else would report what happened.