I _hated_ Scalia while he was on the bench. I fundamentally disagreed with him on a significant amount of his opinions.
Their actual opinions though are of such a different quality to me. Scalia's opinions I could absolutely follow the logic, and at times I found myself sometimes dispairing as I became convinced he might be right on an issue. Essentially, Scalia's logic usually felt on point to me, we just had deep axiomatic differences in how the law should operate and how the constitution should be applied to laws.
Thomas, though, I sometimes have a hard time understanding the argument he's presenting, and sometimes have a "how do you even believe that" reaction to his opinions.
Again, I think I disagreed strongly with Scalia opinions about as often as I do Thomas opinions, I just think they were for very different reasons.
I agree Scalia wrote very tight opinions, but his personal biases were in such intense conflict with the actual constitution that the internal consistency just dosn't make it fly for me. But I see your point.
++ I almost always disagreed with Scalia, but he was a master legal mind in his written opinions. Like, they're not even comparable to Thomas or Kavanaugh, IMO.
I _hated_ Scalia while he was on the bench. I fundamentally disagreed with him on a significant amount of his opinions.
Their actual opinions though are of such a different quality to me. Scalia's opinions I could absolutely follow the logic, and at times I found myself sometimes dispairing as I became convinced he might be right on an issue. Essentially, Scalia's logic usually felt on point to me, we just had deep axiomatic differences in how the law should operate and how the constitution should be applied to laws.
Thomas, though, I sometimes have a hard time understanding the argument he's presenting, and sometimes have a "how do you even believe that" reaction to his opinions.
Again, I think I disagreed strongly with Scalia opinions about as often as I do Thomas opinions, I just think they were for very different reasons.