Have you ever read a newspaper article and gotten the feeling that the author was more than a little pleased with him/herself for having written the article?
Well, I had that feeling this morning when I read Linda Greenhouse's article 'Justices Give Second Hearing in a Texas Death Row Case' in the NYT. She was reporting on the Thomas Miller-El case argued before SCOTUS yesterday.
"When Justice Antonin Scalia, who did an energetic job of reinforcing the state's argument at every turn, told Mr. Waxman that the state had an explanation for each juror and that "a buckshot attack" on the jury selection "has to be examined pellet by pellet," the lawyer responded:
"Let me switch metaphors on you. It is pointillistic. It's like walking up close to a Seurat and looking at a red dot and saying it's not necessarily a handbag. As a reviewing court, you have to step back and look at this."
I get the feeling that Greenhouse did a dance in her cubicle after she wrote the paragraphs above. I can hear her now: "Take that, Scalia - let us see you come back from the famous Seurat defense." What a goof...
Comments