Scalia disagrees with himself - forgets what he said

[Rhea]

Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion

Doug Kendall, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal advocacy group, said the error was mystifying and very unusual for a Supreme Court justice.

"It is a mind-blowing misstatement of a basic fact of the American Trucking Association ruling which Justice Scalia himself wrote. And it's not just a stray passage -- it's the basis for an entire section of the dissent," Kendall said. "It is very unusual for to see a passage that so clearly misstates the fundamental facts of a prior ruling, especially one written by the justice himself."

What happens now? Does he acknowledge the error? blame it on staffers?

 

[Underseer]

Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion

Doug Kendall, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal advocacy group, said the error was mystifying and very unusual for a Supreme Court justice.

"It is a mind-blowing misstatement of a basic fact of the American Trucking Association ruling which Justice Scalia himself wrote. And it's not just a stray passage -- it's the basis for an entire section of the dissent," Kendall said. "It is very unusual for to see a passage that so clearly misstates the fundamental facts of a prior ruling, especially one written by the justice himself."

What happens now? Does he acknowledge the error? blame it on staffers?

You're taking patriot Scalia's opinions out of context. Also, liberals are exactly as bad because they don't believe Obama has a secret weather machine. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, no one in the control center would call it a weather machine, really. It's much more of a process than anything else.

 

[Underseer]

Well, no one in the control center would call it a weather machine, really. It's much more of a process than anything else.

As if it matters what you call it! What matters is that it is part of a very nefarious plot! Thank goodness patriot Alex Jones warned us about it just in time! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[aeebee50]

I suppose the Supreme Court will never be in line with the public. They are little gods in their own world. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_cherokee.html Some presidents do their own thing and go around the courts like andrew jackson (lower case used for contempt of a Tyrant).

 

[Bronzeage]

Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion

Doug Kendall, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal advocacy group, said the error was mystifying and very unusual for a Supreme Court justice.

"It is a mind-blowing misstatement of a basic fact of the American Trucking Association ruling which Justice Scalia himself wrote. And it's not just a stray passage -- it's the basis for an entire section of the dissent," Kendall said. "It is very unusual for to see a passage that so clearly misstates the fundamental facts of a prior ruling, especially one written by the justice himself."

What happens now? Does he acknowledge the error? blame it on staffers?

That's why pencils have erasers.

Same link:

UPDATE: 9:15 A.M. ET

As of Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court has corrected Scalia's opinion. The relevant passage now excludes his erroneous mention of the EPA and replaces the header with a new one that drops an EPA reference.

The new passage reads as follows: "This is not the first time parties have sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns.,Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted the contention that EPA should consider costs in setting NAAQS."

The old header was, "Plus Ça Change: EPA’s Continuing Quest for Cost-Benefit Authority." The new one reads, "Our Precedent."

 

[Rhea]

"This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards]," Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

"This is not the first time parties have sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns.,Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted the contention that EPA should consider costs in setting NAAQS."

So now the dissent says, "they tried this before and I wouldn't buy it then. Parties sought it, confronted the EPA and I smacked them down. But I'll buy it now, because... Benghazi!"

 

[SimpleDon]

Not the only recent case. The politically conservative majority in Bush v. Gore declared that there is no constitutional right to vote or to any other access to the political process.

Now in the recent McCutcheon decision Chief Justice Roberts joined by the other four conservative justices declared in the opening,

“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citizens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.”

But of course, McCutcheon was directed to the rights of citizen corporations, not individuals.