6/28    In Scalia's dissent on the ruling that people in Gitmo have access to
        the courts:
        "The court's unheralded expansion of federal-court jurisdiction is
         not even mitigated by a comforting assurance that the legion of
         ensuing claims will be easily resolved on the merits."
        Is he suggesting that the court should be less willing to consider a
        case if it is difficult?   Gosh, we shouldn't allow lawsuits from all
        these people detained indefinitely in case their suits are not an open
        and shut case.
        \_ No.  "On the merits" means they won't be resolved "on the merits".
           It's English.  He is afraid the courts will be clogged with cases
           that have no merit and hope to get off on technicalities and dumb
           luck.  If the courts weren't so impacted you wouldn't need an
           expensive lawyer to get justice from one because they'd have time
           to deal with each case properly.  The less time a judge has for
           each case the less justice each gets and the more expensive your
           lawyer has to be to be good enough to get your 2 bits in before
           the judge falls asleep.
        \_ Apparently Justice is blind _and_ on a short fuse.
           \- i havent read the dissent but i suspect what he is saying is
              the process isnt well defined enough. for example in the case
              of death pentalty cases, after your first round of "free"
              appeals, what should the threashold be for go to a second round,
              third round, a fourth round ... if you have 5 claims, do you
              have to raise them all at once or can you do it one by one,
              can you conider new evidence or just "reversible errors" ...
              must you have raised an objection at the original trial to
              appeal on a certain issue. another example if the rodney king
              case where after the initial acquittal in a weird end run
              aound double jeopardy, the cops were re-tried under a federal
              statue ... so there are some concerns about trying the case
              as a class, worrying about jurisdiction shopping etc.
              personal comment: i think scalia's reputation is over inflated.
              and his whackoness is keeping him relatively irrelevant.
              it's sort of the flip side of the last few years of brennan
              and marshall's "pointless" dissents. i think after thomas
              he is the most tainted justice. scalia's irritated screeching
              is nothing new. again lawrence v texas, the nude dancing case
              etc. --psb