« Potential Replacements for Justice O'Connor | Main | Searching Under the Robes: "Sandra Day O'Connor Is Evil" »

July 02, 2005


Scott Wiles

"The statement of Justice Scalia -- with whom Justice O'Connor has had some personal issues over the years"

This is certainly an understatement - their feuds have boiled well beyond "personal issues"

nagging nitty

In Phoenix, the grocery chain owned by Kroger's is called Fry's. Either way, they wouldn't shop there. SOC and WJR would shop at AJ's Fine Foods.

Eh Nonymous

Nice theorizing, a3g (I pronounce that as "ah! thr'-g!" in my head everytime I see it)

I agree it makes sense, but would still dissent, for the reasons I give in comments at http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/analysis_gonzal.html (Gonzalez -- Yes, but not yet?, posted by Lyle D.), 3rd comment by Eh Nonymous.

Interesting point about Scalia's encomium I choose to think that he meant it without spin; we can, by staring too hard, invent ambiguity and duplicitous intent where none exists. Of course, Scalia's problem is usually that he fails to see the ambiguity in the text just because he doesn't agree with the other interpretation. Ah well, "reasonable minds could differ."

Keep up the great work, Groupie!

The comments to this entry are closed.