See e.g., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013). (Scalia J. dissenting). (“I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.”). (Emphasis added); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 616 (1987). (Scalia J. dissenting). (“Thus, the fact that creation science coincides with the beliefs of certain religions, a fact upon which the majority relies heavily, does not itself justify invalidation of the Act.”)

What is interesting is that unlike in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology, Scalia is “able to affirm those details on [his] own knowledge or even [his] own belief.” For example, in antitrust cases and environmental cases.

Itzchak Kornfeld

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *