There are so many problems and half truths and misrepresentations in this article that I do not know where to begin. First, There is a major distinction between LAWYERS persuading judges, and JUDGES persuading OTHER JUDGES. Lawyers are paid to persuade, that is what they do. But to think that a Supreme Court Justice could persuade another on such a large issue like originalism or living constitutionalism, is not realistic. I find it amusing that the author keeps emphasizing that Scalia hasn't changed any of his colleagues' minds on the Court. Fair enough. But who has Breyer or Ginsburg persuaded in the past 10-15 years THEY have been on the Court?! They haven't persuaded Scalia, or Thomas, or Roberts, or Alito! Why the double standard?

Second, the author continually claims and implies that Scalia is arrogant and thinks he is smarter than all of us lay people. If that's the case, why did he write A Matter of Interpretation a decade ago, a book that on its face states that it is aimed at the general population; laymen?! That is a pretty critical fact to omit, when you're claiming (as this author is) that Scalia doesn't believe in persuading the public, and thinks he is too smart to put his ideas forward to the public about originalism.

Lastly, the author doesn't really make any point about any alternatives to originalism. If she is going to criticize Scalia's proposal that federal judges interpret the Constitution using originalism, then it seems to me that she should give an alternative method for interpreting the Document. Non-originalists are quick to criticize, but they are yet to put forth a clear, internally-consistent methodology for constitutional interpretation. What should we use to decide changing morals and standards of decency and morality, if we're not going to use constitutional text, history, and tradition? Polls? International Comparative Law (and if so, from which countries)?

This author clearly does not have the interest -- nor has she taken the time to obtain the understanding of American History and Constitutional Law -- that is necessary, if she is going to be in the business of criticizing Supreme Court justices and jurisprudential methodology with any level of legitimacy. Her article is poorly written, and makes no points of any significance. It's obvious why she is jealous of Scalia: because his writing is everything that hers is not: clear, direct, witty, and always focused on conveying a clear and consistent message to the reader.