I didn't exactly say what I thought...I said that it was an important editorial (being from one of the majot papers and all), calling attention TO the difference in approaches and attitudes and raising some historical and legal points. Yes, I rather do tend to agree with the Post's take on this...which was NOT wholesale condemnation of Scalia, but merely pointing to some things.

1.)"right to express his view"? Of course he has a right to express his view...I sorta wish members of the court 'expressed their views' more clearly and sooner.

2.) see # 1

3.) What...the Washington Post shoudn't be able to express it's views and "make a speech" at times? ;>))