I've read many of Justice Antonin Scalia's judicial opinions over the years. While I almost always enjoyed reading them (if for no other reason than their wit), I haven't always been happy with the reasoning being displayed. Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), for example, is tendentious. His reasoning is no better, and arguably worse, than that of Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented. This doesn't mean I don't like the result in that case (I do); nor does it mean that it's impossible to reach that result through sound reasoning (it's possible); it means that Justice Scalia's reasoning is unimpressive and, in the end, unpersuasive. I chalk the poor reasoning up to lack of philosophical training. (Scalia majored in history as an undergraduate.)
Language
–––––––
