Talk:Antonin Scalia

This article needs a cleanup, a banner at its head proclaims, and I entirely agree. For that reason, I've bent the usual Wikipedia conventions on style, but I think doing so has made the presentation of the quoations and their sources considerably clearer. 63.134.128.4 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (w:user:Simon Dodd)
 * Interesting format, I personally think that it's quite good. But generally, I think that we should seek to have the format of all the pages in wikiquote to be more or less uniform, and this one is significantly different. I'll post it in Village_pump and hopefully get more impressions from other people. iddo999 19:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Different, I agree, but posessing the virtue of clarity, if nothing else. When I look at other examples - Winston Churchill, for example - I find them no more or less clear than this article was when it was labeled in need of a cleanup. Which is to say, not very clear. The problem is one inherent in the nature of an encyclopaedia of quotations: it is, at root, just a series of text and text explaining text. Unless it can be broken up by something - anything! - other than text, it's always going to have the clarity problem. I'm not saying that this style (breaking up text using background color) is right, just that I've not seen any apporach which is better. Is there a particular article which is considered exemplary of how to handle large volumes of quotations within an article? 63.134.128.4 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)(w:user:Simon Dodd)
 * Well, in the Noam Chomsky page that I'm working on, I use the tag for source lines. How do you like it? Others think that the indentation for source lines is clear enough. I'd say that if there was an agreement that the use of colors for clarity is a good idea, then your particular version here is great. However, I suspect that some might find the use of colors to be too "disruptive". Haven't received replies yet in Village_pump, so we'll see. iddo999 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Noam Chomsky works pretty well, although I think it would be slightly clearer to indent the citation with an appropriate number of apostrophes (to create a blank indent) rather than an asterisk (to create an additional bullet point). 63.134.135.42 01:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (w:user:Simon Dodd)
 * The quote from Hollingsworth v. Perry was actually Justice Kennedy, not Justice Scalia, and thus was removed.

Can anyone add a citation to the 2005 quote about Futurama?

An unanswered question
At a New York University Q-and-A in 2005 (as originally reported in the New York Post, and subsequently described in the Nation, and in various books), student Eric Berndt asked Scalia about his dissent re the striking down of sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas; Scalia's response -- regarding personal privacy, the state's interest, sexual morality, etc -- did not satisfy Berndt. Berndt then asked "Justice Scalia, do you sodomize your wife?"

(Scalia refused to answer, Berndt's microphone was turned off, and I believe Berndt was removed from the event.)

Since this was said to Scalia, should it be here? DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Edwards v. Aguillard quote
The recently added quote from this case was actually an example of Justice Scalia quoting/summarizing what witnesses had professed rather than an original quote of his. I'm not sure that it really belongs on Scalia's page. It might make sense on a page about evolution, but I don't see that it should be here. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent catch. Since that quote has appeared in a Scalia image meme, I think it may be better to correct that misunderstanding here on this quote page. Accordingly, I've added context and moved it to Misattributed. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)