My name has the perfect number of characters.
“Scalia therefore has not a leg to stand on. He demands something that is logically inconsistent, impossible of execution, and plainly at odds with the original understanding of the Framers of the Constitution as to how it would be applied and put to use. It is also abundantly clear that Scalia merely claims textual and/or original understanding as justification for his preferred outcome, even when the evidence is such that neither the text nor any plausible contemporaneous understanding would support him. In other words, he just makes it up. That is why I say he is a judicial crook. Perhaps a better description would be that he is a judicial charlatan.”
— Comments can be wonderful.