Scalia has a good point that Shakespeare is a total idiot. Try buying some meat from the butcher, and then have
him charge you extra because your pound of cow flesh did not include the cow blood that's soaking the meat.

I read Scalia & Garner's book; some good tips in there for practicing attorneys.

I did find the portions where they direct the reader to "order some junior associate to do [______]" pretty amusing. As if Scalia and Garner would only deign to write to the senior partner audience.

Some portions read more like a book of aphorisms (or cliches, depending on one's perspective) than a guide to persuading judges. On second thought, perhaps the two genres are not so different after all.

Korematsu? Get over it!

Nice link to the old profile of chubby funster John Yoo. Ah, hindsight.

I think he meant "[D]issents are just good. Look back at [Bush v. Gore]. Isn't it nice to know that [Justice Stevens] - at least someone on the Court - saw how horrible it was? A dissent keeps you honest."

5:23 - You have violated the first rule of textualism. The text means exactly what it says. But considering your point of view its not suprising that you would twist Scalia's words

Here's a non sequitur for you, but nonetheless true:

Sometimes I'm glad I became a lawyer.
Other times I wish I had simply
become a ninja.

if the last quote about ninjas has inspired you, then look no further for ninja-worthy gear for today's conflicted attorney:

http://www.cafepress.com/innerlegend/5610393

5:36 - 5:23 has followed the first rule of textualism - say the text means what you want it to. It works for Scalia, at least as long as he's on the Court. But for that fortuity, he would be serving pizza somewhere.

Strange choice for Clement to make. Didn't he get any good firm offers? Or are all the Republican firms reconfiguring themselves and not interested in a partisan?

Interesting that he chose to extol the dissent in Korematsu, as Scalia would have been the first to write the majority opinion had he been on the court at that time.

isn't it curious that a clearly politically motivated bullshit decision gave us the worst (literally the worst) and most despised presidnent ever?

if only the votes would have been counted....

thanks Nino!

In what sense is this a non-sequitur? The posts are all related the theme of this website and are also all related to one another. In the case of the Scalia posts, they literally follow one after the other, as they make up a three part series.

5:52 PM:

Who would choose a firm over teaching at one of the nation's premier law schools.

You sound very ignorant. Do you know how how cherished law school teaching jobs are? Do you realize that perhaps 1percent of the people that get BigLaw jobs (and that's being liberal) actually have the opportunity to be a professor at a top 25 law school?

"Non-Sequiturs" is just the name ATL gives to its end-of-day linkwrap post (a collection of assorted links, presented as bullet points).

Poor guy, working at GULC. Apparently GW wouldn't take him?

"if only the votes would have been counted...."

Uh, they were counted by the media several times the following year. Gore still would have lost. But hey, why let facts get in the way?

5:57: Apparently you have never read Justice Scalia's opinion in Hamdi. Although Scalia understands that foreigners who have no connections to the United States have no rights under the U.S. Constitution (a proposition that was wholly uncontroversial before the Court purposefully misinterpreted Johnson v. Eisentrager to serve a far-left agenda in Rasul v. Bush), he is not at all willing to compromise the rights of U.S. citizens in a time of war. Justice Thomas, whose position in Hamdi differed markedly from Scalia's, probably would have been far more likely to join the majority in Korematsu (this is not meant as an attack on Thomas; reasonable people can and do differ on how to balance liberty and security and on whether Korematsu was correctly decided; see Michelle Malkin's In Defense of Internment).

But then again, you know nothing about the Constitution or what Scalia's positions are and are just trying to take a cheap shot.

Fed Soc

245

turn off the rush limbo show and read a bit - dumbass

Fed Soc: good tactic insulting those with whom you disagree; that's always a sophisticated approach to an argument. (You sound like a liberal lambasting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with your positions.) Did it ever occur to you that Scalia's rhetoric about the supposed rights of US citizens in Hamdi is merely that, and serves as a convenient support for his ultimate conclusion. If you truly believe that he would have come out differently if a US citizen were involved, let alone over fifty years ago when the country was actually at war, then you are really drinking his kool-aid. If you look at the man's record of decisions, siding in favor of government over basic rights in virtually any situation, it doesn't take much common sense to see the hypocrisy of his statements re Korematsu.

Apparently I read more than you.

9:39:
By his 'ultimate conclusion', do you mean that a US citizen should either be tried or released? I have no idea what you mean by 'rhetoric about the supposed rights of US citizens'--he seems to be pretty clear in his opinion about rights of US citizens.
If you care to cite to any of the decisions you would use to support your argument, that might be useful. Instead, what we have in this discussion so far is one case mentioned--Hamdi--where Scalia's opinion certainly would lead one to think he would have agreed with the dissent in Korematsu. If you have any actual cases to show otherwise, please point them out.

Scalia "sid[es] in favor of government over basic rights in virtually any situation"? Huh? So Crawford, Blakely, and Kyllo were pro-government decisions? Perhaps you meant to say Scalia "sid[es] in favor of government over [purported] rights [that do not appear in the text of the Constitution] in virtually any situation"?

lat - SCOTUS clerk hiring updates?