“Pure applesauce.” “Jiggery-pokery.” Comparable to “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
How’s that for a sampling of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s thoughts on his colleagues’ judicial reasoning?
And that’s just last week.
Scalia’s dissents in both King v. Burwell, in which the court ruled 6-3 to allow tax-credit subsidies for those who purchase health insurance on exchanges established by the federal government, and Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court struck down same-sex marriage bans nationwide, took a blisteringly critical tone.
The justice, who is known for his sharply worded opinions, described Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic” and referenced its “showy profundities” and “profound” incoherence.
Here’s what Slate’s said about me: “One would think that Lauren’s mindset is a defense of the indefensible. There is no remedy for that.”