Read it again. Every single quote has scalia "thundering" or exclaimation pointing (usually both) through the conversation with Eliasberg, who in turn is NEVER "stunned" or exclaimation point happy.

Nice attempt at trying to smear a supreme court justice as a raving lunatic, but a very obvious one.

What's happened to the press in this country?

That's because Scalia's an asshole. Not hard to figure out. Or do you agree that the cross is a universal non-religious religious symbol that represents all religion in the world regardless of what that religion says?

Scalia's religious intolerance is not new news. Its not the first time he has ranted on this subject both in Orals or on the lecture circuit.

Bigotry would be to NOT document it.

And besides, the author uses other unflattering verbs like "sputter" to describe the verbal ejaculations of other court members, even the liberal ones.

Bondsman, you have fallen prey to the hostile media effect.

Really, so in what respect is he intolorant of religion? He is a strong practicing Catholic, I am not certain how that makes him intolorant of religion? Maybe if you were a little more cogent, your point would be more clear...unless you really don't have one.

Scalia is the bigot. Not the article.

I believe what is meant is that Scalia is not very tolerant of freedom of religion or perhaps not on board with the principle of separation of church and state. He'll have his final reckoning with the Big Guy in the Sky soon enough.

opus512:

That's because Scalia's an asshole. Not hard to figure out. Or do you agree that the cross is a universal non-religious religious symbol that represents all religion in the world regardless of what that religion says?

The job of the Supreme Court is to obtain information, and then make a decision, right? Right now he's in the information gathering stage. Just because you don't understand the technique of playing "the devil's advocate", that does NOT mean you know how Scalia will eventually vote.

Every time the SC has to decide something, *someone* here has some hateful thing to say about at least one justice or their technique. To what purpose?

nominalize:

And besides, the author uses other unflattering verbs like "sputter" to describe the verbal ejaculations of other court members, even the liberal ones. Bondsman, you have fallen prey to the hostile media effect.

I would accept that if the petitioner's side received the same treatment, but ONLY the people who are asking questions *opposed* to the petitioner get that treatment, so it really looks like I've fallen prey to a hostile *media*.

Read Smith v. Unemployment Division and the Church of Lukumi cases and then try to argue he's not anti-free religion.

The prose did sound like it was written by a hack specializing in cheap melodrama. This pulpy style of writing doesn't add much to the article except maybe make people wonder if Scalia really is all that bad.

Scalias renaultesque shock that the cross is seen as a necessarily religious symbol is a level of dishonesty that is essentially a religious crusade (hmm where DOES that word derive from I wonder) to impose support of religious belief upon the rest of us who do not believe as he does.

As pointed out elsewhere, his intolerance to other sects' sacred rituals he finds offensive is well documented in his own writings.

Its not that he is intolorant OF religion - it is that his religious views are intolerant towards all but his OWN beliefs.

Bondsman:

nominalize:

And besides, the author uses other unflattering verbs like "sputter" to describe the verbal ejaculations of other court members, even the liberal ones. Bondsman, you have fallen prey to the hostile media effect.

Sometimes one side IS more irrational. Scalia's irrationality on the subject of religion is well known.

I would accept that if the petitioner's side received the same treatment, but ONLY the people who are asking questions *opposed* to the petitioner get that treatment, so it really looks like I've fallen prey to a hostile *media*.