Scalia's opinions, that so many cited as brilliant, are literally insane.
I don't think they are "scraping" anything that has any actual basis in constitutional legal analysis. They are probably just finding bits of insanity to cite.
Way back when, I took time to try to decipher Scalia's seemingly endless, convoluted, bizarre logic.
After subjecting myself to slogging through a handful of decisions, I could only conclude that it was an "emperor has no clothes" situation. A situation where the "innocent" (me) could see what the "experts" were afraid to admit. There were "conclusions" that were literally insane, but they were buried in unsupported, convoluted strangeness, When you dug a bit, it seemed pretty clear to me that the "legal conclusions" presented as "obvious" had no basis in decipherable legal reasoning whatsoever. Over and over I was flummoxed in a way that had nothing to do with lack of knowledge, but everything to do with amazement that there weren't more people declaring the man a mad zealot whose opinions had no straight-line grounding in actual law or precedent.
The opinions of the current crop of black-robbed traitors -- at least the couple of opinions I've taken the time to pull apart as a non-lawyer (but nevertheless savvy human capable of high-level analysis) -- are not quite as convoluted and bizarre, but seemingly pivotal points are literally gobbledygook when you actually do some searches on the bases cited.
These traitors literally have no ground to stand on, but I fear that too many "legal experts" who recognize the truth think we, folks in the general public, aren't smart enough to "get" an analysis that demonstrates the Un-Constitutional insanity of it all, so they only speak in general terms that leave the legalistic, Un-Constitutional, gobbledygook of crazy, Un-American zealots with law degrees standing as somehow an "alternate" and valid analysis.
= new reply since forum marked as read