What’s not okay about that is that it sets precedent and reduces decision-making – legal decision-making to subjective, and sometimes arbitrary or capriscious standards = which is absolutely not what it’s supposed to be.

First – here’s a link to all the opinions in that opinion.

Second, Scalia is Bush’s go to justice. For all the arguing Scalia does about sticking to the four corners of the law and being a strict constructionist, I find his opinions to routinely be a decision in search of a way to reason it. I know – that’s very cyncical.

Third, and as to this particular decision, Buck Naked Politics had a nice round-up not too long ago about how the decision was political and not guided by stare decisis or other legal dogma.

This objection applies to many of Scalia’s opinions – they are political, not in line with the guidelines we learn in law school for how to review a decision. And Scalia does this constantly.

The most recent example is a case calle Met Life which had to do with the federal regs under ERISA. I read that case very closely and it is astonishing how he reaches in order to dissent. There are parts of that decision where he actually, literally, makes no sense.

Of course, I feel that way about Senor Bush on a regular basis – but I’m just a Democrat.

When we were talking there, I forget what, you said something to the effect of “I even got over Scalia handing the election to Bush in 2000.”

why Scalia? He was only one of 5. Why didnt you say “I even got over OConnor handling the election to Bush in 2000.”

I didnt really think about it at the time, but now I am curious to know why you singled out Scalia there.