Scalia’s Dissents—The Musical

[PolWatch]

The latest hit by the Supreme! (Pure Applesauce!)

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ts—The+Musical

[Chris]

[Chris]

I used to admire him. He's a great legal scholar, excellent writer, sarcastic and funny. But his temperament has turned him to espouse agendas. His opinion in DC v Heller was the worst thing to happen to gun rights in a long time for while it finds the 2nd amendment applies to individuals it opens the door to regulation.

[PolWatch]

I was surprised when I read some of the remarks by the dissenters on the SSM ruling. Some of them seem to be nothing but snark. No illusions about the SCOTUS left.

[Chris]

Here's a good description of his writing style: Antonin Scalia Is the Supreme Court's Greatest Writer:

...As he proved once again in his peppery dissent in King v. Burwell, Scalia is the foremost living practitioner of performative legal prose, a masterful writer who can make torts tarty and judgments jazzy. Scalia’s dissent is full of the little touches that make his writing so delightful, such as the piquant slang (notably “jiggery-pokery” and “pure applesauce,” wonderfully quaint euphemisms for “bull$#@!”). Scalia’s dissent also gave voice to his familiar wrathful disdain for the pettifogging prose of his inferiors, as when he snorted, "Lawmakers sometimes repeat themselves—whether out of a desire to add emphasis, a sense of belt-and-suspenders caution, or a lawyerly penchant for doublets (aid and abet, cease and desist, null and void)."

Scalia’s reactionary jurisprudence has made him a polarizing figure, but the pungency of his writing is widely admired even by those who fear that he will return America to the dark ages....

[Peter1469]

I used to admire him. He's a great legal scholar, excellent writer, sarcastic and funny. But his temperament has turned him to espouse agendas. His opinion in DC v Heller was the worst thing to happen to gun rights in a long time for while it finds the 2nd amendment applies to individuals it opens the door to regulation.

I don't think that there was ever any serious legal scholar doubt that the 2nd Amendment was subject to regulation.

The 2nd Amendment reflected the Militia Acts of the states. It made no changes.

The Militia Acts regulated weapon ownership.