Quote:
Originally posted by kddani
I have to give him credit, his dissent in the Texas sodomy case was one of the most entertaining thing i've read while in law school.
|
His dissents are usually quite entertaining.
I will say, his opinions and dissents are also usually quite consistent -- and he takes great joy in pointing out how the decisions of other justices are inconsistent with their earlier decisions or how even the parties or
amici curiae take inconsistent positions. He skewered the American Psychology Association in the death penality for defendants under 18 case for saying minors aren't capable of understanding the implications of their actions when they kill someone, pointing out that just 10 years ago, in a parental consent for abortion case, the APA said that minors are quite capable of making these decisions for themselves and understanding the implications.
Love him or hate him, he's always consistent.
Dani, are you still in law school or out practicing now?