The scientific caucus in Congress is small but growing:

“If we continue to reproduce in this manner,” Mr. Foster began, and Mr. Ehlers finished the thought, “the entire Congress would consist of physicists!”

They were joking — probably. But a Congress full of physicists might solve some worrisome problems, the three-member physics caucus argued one afternoon when they met for a joint interview in the Capitol.

There are 435 people in the House, Mr. Holt said, and “420 don’t know much about science and choose not to.”

I should have known you would steal Scalia all for yourself.

“Obviously you were aware of the case all along, just as I stated.”

Nope.  Wrong again, for the hat trick.

I looked it up after your post and read the transcript. 

“I would think some grounding in science would be highly desirable to decide if carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant the EPA should regulate.”

Yes indeed, and the people who’s job it is to make that determination should have that grounding in science.  It is not the Supreme Court’s job to “decide if carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant the EPA should regulate,” and again, that was not the specific question being discussed before the court. 

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to hit the buffet table and read Reagan’s biography.  Oh yeah, and snuggle up and spoon with Scalia, my illicit love-monkey.

Never argue law or anything else with a lawyer. You were dissembling before and grossly dissembling now.

Obviously you were aware of the case all along, just as I stated.

I heard the “verbal” transcript of the case and Scalia did not appear to me to be making light of his inexpertise. He sounded petulant and bitchy.

Whether others laughed is irrelevant.

You can interpret it anyway you wish as I’m sure you will. If you had any couth at all, you would simply accept I have a different viewpoint, but you, and your lowbrow friend, seem to feel the need to bludgeon me to death to “prove” your point. Why ? To what end ?

“Yes “the law” does.  But that was not the issue before the court, and it was not the context in which Scalia’s comment was made.”

That is purely your opinion. It is, at best, questionable. I would think some grounding in science would be highly desirable to decide if carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant the EPA should regulate. You might think all he needs to do is hit the buffet table one more time and read Reagan’s autobiography to render a ruling.

I’m sure that is what you would do under similar circumstances.

You have to understand...Ed considers himself a heavy thinker but needs the clunky rhetoric to keep his ideas from floating off into the toposphere like an inconvenient fart.

Scalia understands that we are a nation governed by laws...not fads or this weeks attempt by the cool kids to screw us out of even more money and personal freedom with yet another play to those with underdeveloped emotional maturity. He realizes that freedom is always in danger of being overrun and that it usually happens when enough weak willed and soft minded people are convinced that screwing themselves for the greater good of a power elite is the best way to make things better.

And that’s where Ed comes in...flambouyantly...as if the argument needed an actual real life example to drive the point home.

Ed -

No dissembling going on here - just trying to get you to state a clear position, which is like trying to nail jello to a tree, since you never answer any questions I ever ask.

“The case was cited below in the original post and I’m sure you already know it well, context and all, it being whether or not carbon needs to be monitored by the EPA as hazardous to health.”

Wrong. 

That was not the question before the Supreme Court. 

“Scalia was just bitching about being forced to decide on technical issues outside of his expertise.”

Wrong again.  He was being funny, as he often does, as clearly evidence by the laughter in the courtroom after his statement.

“Would Souter or Ginsberg have whined like a baby like that?”

A quote from the transcript in that very same case:

“JUSTICE BREYER: Do you think they have a good reason, yes or no? Because I’m not an expert in foreign affairs.”

Is Breyer “whining” because he’s being forced to make a decision on area beyond his expertise?  Is he now disqualified from making a decision on matters of law dealing with foreign affairs?  He has openly and publicly admitted he is not an expert in foreign affairs - although here, he wasn’t joking around, as Scalia was when he said he wasn’t a scientist.

“Does the law touch on highly technical matters and matters of science ? I believe it does but I’m open to your contrary opinion.”

Yes “the law” does.  But that was not the issue before the court, and it was not the context in which Scalia’s comment was made.

“How can he decide on legal issues touching on science if he does not understand science nor have any interest in understanding it.”

Because the legal issue before the court and the one on which he was commenting was not a matter of science; nor would the court attempt to rule on matter of science.  The issue had to do with whether the plaintiff in the case (the state of Massachusetts) had standing to sue the U.S. EPA, and what legal authority or obligation the EPA had to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. 

The lawyer representing the EPA stated, “I don’t want to pretend to be an expert on global climate change.” I guess he shouldn’t be there arguing on behalf of the U.S. EPA, then?

None of the justices are scientists.  I’d bet that, before this case came before them, probably none of them would have been able to differentiate between the stratosphere and the troposphere.  Are none of them qualified to rule on matters of environmental law?

And your “Bill loves Scalia” stuff seems very 6th grade.  “See Bill?  You love him!  You just won’t admit it!  Har har har!”

Pretty puerile attempt at debate.  It’s right up there with “I know you are, but what am I?”

Beside, how could I love Antonin Scalia, when I have eyes only for you, Ed?

By the way - if you actually would read the transcript of the argument you might get a better idea of what was going on the case, rather than allowing your preconceived notions and sound bite quotes from some other internet source rule your reality.

Why Mr. Biscuit, I do believe you are jealous! Projectile vomiting is mostly for infants I believe and very unseemly in a grown man.Especially when engendered by a fit of pique. We can’t have that. “If Greta accuses you one more time of being a genius?” What an odd Freudian combination. One can be accused of being ignorant or unsavory but not of being a genius. You elevated
Bill to genius on my behalf. I believe I just complimented him and another poster on what I thought were intelligent and well thought out comments. I am sorry to intrude on this discussion but I do enjoy reading even those pieces that I have an interest in but little or no expertise. One can always learn sometimes more from with whom one does not agree. And just for the record Mr. Biscuit I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I campaigned for JFK and RFK and Reagan and a whole host of politicos
since then. I always support the man not the party. I simply have no illusions about the system. The young ones who are having their first intoxicating fling with politics are to be forgiven their naivete. We all had our halcyon days when we thought we hung the moon and the world had just been waiting for us to come along and change it. I am sorry to intrude on this discussion.I hope that I am not breaking some unwritten rule. It can’t be hard to tell I am new at this .

Bill,

You are dissembling, a very lawyerly trait for sure.

The case was cited below in the original post and I’m sure you already know it well, context and all, it being whether or not carbon needs to be monitored by the EPA as hazardous to health.

Scalia was just bitching about being forced to decide on technical issues outside of his expertise. Would Souter or Ginsberg have whined like a baby like that ?

Perhaps yes. Who can say.  Does the law touch on highly technical matters and matters of science ? I believe it does but I’m open to your contrary opinion. How can he decide on legal issues touching on science if he does not understand science nor have any interest in understanding it.

Your “great admiration” sounds gushing to me. Is Scalia above criticism ? I believe not, but I’m open to your contrary opinion, gushing and adorative as it might be.

Face it. You have nothing bad to say about Scalia because you are a staunch believer in Scalia. That’s ok. Own up to it. Admit it. You love the guy.

Well I wouldn’t call him my “hero”, but I do like the guy’s thinking and writing.  I wouldn’t say that I “love” him - I don’t even know the guy - heck, he hasn’t ever even asked me on a date yet.  What kind of guy do you think I am?  I don’t know about gushing or adorative either.  You sound so grade school - “Bill loooooves Scalia!”

“If there is no great crime in not being sufficiently knowledgible on the subjects he decides on, then no harm, no foul.”

Is he deciding on the legality of whether the troposphere is the troposphere, or some other matter of science?  Or is he deciding on the meaning of a law - something for which he is preeminently qualified?

Maybe if you explained what the case was about and what the question was that Scalia had to deal with, we would have some context for his comment.

See what I mean ?

Bill loves Scalia, even if he once again stopped just short of calling him his hero.

That was gushing adorative praise.

So the guy behaves down to earth. Pin a medal on him if you wish. I only mentioned his words. If there is no great crime in not being sufficiently knowledgible on the subjects he decides on, then no harm, no foul.

As for sense of humor, this entire thread was a bit tongue in cheek. I knew mentioning Scalia’s name in vain would irritate Bill, and if I’m not allowed to occasionally irritate Bill, there is no joy in life.

It will most certainly not dissuade Bill from being irritating. That much is for certain. All I had to do to get a reaction was to quote Antonin Scalia’s own words.

I agree completely that the ensuing peanut gallery statement “inhabiting the fringes of intellectual brilliance,” is totally arguable, probably just a jibe, and probably depends on who you ask, whether liberal or conservative.

In fact, if I have any real beef at all, beyond that of non-scientists dominating scientific discussions, it would be the over-politization of the Supreme Court, the fact that liberal or conservative persuasion has so much weight in discussions (and opinions?) these days.

Give Scalia a break on this one. I am not a fan of his legal outlook but I have seen him on TV giving lectures at law schools, think tanks. He has a sense of humor. Besides, I suspect a little humor is needed in the court and he was being honest. Most Supreme Court cases have got to be boring. How exciting can patent law, contracts, technical stuff of law be ? I do not blame him. Listening to lawyers drone on, reading countless dull briefs and he is honest and makes a joke, give me a break

Post Your Comments: