Justice Scalia's comments

People are upset over things they think were asserted in a setting about which they know nothing.

 

Seems like you're trying to make a point, but I'm not seeing the significance.

 

Oral arguments in the Supreme Court are not circumstances in which what a justice says is necessarily what he/she is thinking. And what a justice says is not necessarily an assertion ... it can be, as in this instance, a prodding of someone who's making an argument to clarify or expand that argument.

 

He was devil's advocating.

I will say this: As the board's resident dyed-in-the-wool racist, I'm not surprised people here wouldn't see that.

 

Understood. I am not sure I am so willing to assume that it necessarily is a prodding and not a chance Scalia took to stump for separate and not-quite-equal being fine and dandy.

 

#freepostage

 

7-2. Thomas votes against Brown vs. Brown also. And I actually think Alioto would have voted against it also.

 

Thomas is black, and we all know what liberals really think of blacks.

 

What's that, T?

 

The troubling this is the generalization with which Scalia spoke. He didn't bother to add any qualifiers to his statement.

 

He didn't have to. He was speaking within that context already. There is nothing troubling about what he said. Manufactured controversy and intellectually dishonest.

 

Harry Reid disagrees ...