Remembering how people would share Scalia dissents and be like “I disagree with his politics but he has a way with words!!” and they all read like if a school shooter wrote A Confederacy of Dunces
I can see him being like a decent writer in terms of the grammar making sense, paragraphs flowing from one to the next. But he makes so many dumb and unwarranted assumptions to get to the answer he clearly wants.
At first I thought "oh after reading posts by basement dwellers on 4chan ofc this wouldn't make a big impact" and then I realized it's extremely repetitive and just... uncomfortable. I was not an insightful teenager and even to me that book was so mediocre and uncomfortable I had to drop it.
I can’t even quantify how much shit I used to get in law school for not being sufficiently “impressed” with Scalia’s writing. “It’s just snark masking really bad ideas” always met with a “how dare you!”
You're seeing this with the people saying "well Adrian Vermuele has some weirdo views but his writing and scholarship is so good" as if his goal isn't a Francoesque theocracy
She should have retired when Obama asked her to. He saw the writing on the damn wall. We wouldn't be here today. I love RBG but her hubris in that moment has now come to fruition and we're a paying that price.
I oft have heard comparative law scholars compare him to Lord Denning, calling him the "American Denning" and its like. Denning actually wrote judgements that came off like poetry, and had interesting insights. His personal politics were yikes, but his judgements. It is an insulting comparison
Part of that was he was an asshole in his writing and my generation was addicted to irony at one point.
But yeah it was pretty clear that "originalism" was total horseshit.