scalia

They have Scalia defending maternity leave, asylum seekers, armed robbers, and members of the communist youth league.

It does feature satirical articles and columns, including the Borowitz Report, of which that Scalia article is one installment.

Roberts and Scalia mostly disagreed with (1), but there was very little substance to their argument.

But Scalia asks what the legal reasoning is, not whether it's the right outcome.

The justices, as aptly demonstrated recently (viz scalia, whose textualism has no meaning besides whatever his personal politics prefer) are politicians, no more.

Roberts and Scalia also made some more practical arguments, e.g.

Roberts and Scalia doesn't respond to these.

Accusing them as being unprofessional, incompetent and even intentionally so malign to declare them threat to nation every time they disagree with him - all these is clear indicator that Scalia is not fit for the bench.

Scalia's opinion is that, effectively, the courts should be judging based on Scalia's personal opinion of the "legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation".

Even though Scalia probably agrees with your unspoken rule, he doesn't reach the same conclusion because of it: (Scalia, I): "...

When asked if he had seen recent evidence of the Devil, Scalia replied, "You know, it is curious.

One of their headlines is "Scalia Arrested for trying to Burn Down Supreme Court"...

> Scalia's argument is the stronger here Scalia's argument is not new and goes back to before the civil rights era.

Roberts' and Scalia's central theme was the Court overstepping its bounds and ending the legislative process prematurely.

Scalia has this nice little statistic showing that just about 2% of the American population can kill any constitutional amendment.