Any questions the teeming thousands want answered?
Ask him if the other Justices call him “Scully.”
Heheheheheh.
Well sure, I could do that. But I already had my heart set on asking why he doesn’t just give up and change his name to Antonio?
Well, the obvious one is the whole election thing.
Ask him if Clarence always travels when he drives the lane. Is he proud of his boy? You might want to wear garlic as a precaution.
I’ve met him after he came to speak at my college. My impression was that he is a big jerk. Then again, maybe a certain level of arrogance is required if you’re going to be interpreting the constitution of the United States as your 9-5 job.
He’s a smoker. I’d be interested to know his take on tobacco companies’ liability.
Considering he’s got a lifetime position, that’s the best news I’ve heard in quite a while.
I went to college with his son, Chris, so tell him I said hey.
Ask him if his heart beats.
Aren’t you supposed to be studying and not posting or something?
For a more apolitical question, I would suggest asking, “What is Golf?” Here is a bit from Scalia’s dissent in the pga/disabled golfer case, something I’ve posted about before. It’s pretty funny:
Obviously, he doesn’t believe that the case required any such determination.
Loaded political questions are of course fun too.
Ah the humor from the room. I suppose I could ask him why he chooses to slyly cut down every opposing justice in every opinion he writes, but I don’t think that would go over too well.
He’s speaking downstairs right now. I’ll catch the 12:30 set.
So you guys have another hour and a half to give me your best question. Right now I think I’m going with Fretful’s because I want to see the look on his face when I ask him just how familiar his son was with a Porpentine.
Oh my god, after reading your post I just got the most beautiful case of wheezing cartoon laughter. You know, the kind of laugh they always give animated dogs or wolves when they’re being sneaky?
I wish I’d had a tape recorder running, Warner Brothers has nothing on me.
Thanks for the smile, anyhoo.
Yeah, specifically ask him how he can justify applying the Equal Protection clause to help Bush get into the White House when he refused to apply the Equal Protection clause in almost every other case that came before him prior to the November election.
Pick up a copy of The Betrayal of America for references and cites – with any luck, you can watch him squirm as you throw his own contradictory quotes at him. 
Well, it was interesting.
Sorry to say that I didn’t use any of your suggestions. I did ask a question though! Not that he actually answered it in so many words rather than breaking off into a tangent about a rigid constitution and stop-n-frisks not being done in the 1790s…but I got to ask a question! So there!
He did talk briefly about Bush V Gore. How, when state courts brought up federal questions and the attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court to hear those Federal questions, it was a no brainer. They just HAD to hear the case. I mean, duh!
He cracked a number of jokes which were quite humorous, but, by far, the biggest downturn came when he discussed his decision on a case concerning the right to confront your accusser. In this case, it was a six year old girl confronting her molester and he disagreed with the decision to use a closed circuit TV for her testimony. Just the way he was describing it, I dunno, there was a very nervous silence across the room. No one wanted to react positively or negatively to what he was saying.
Overall, I found it to be informative. I suppose I can go back for the 4:30 session.
Why Ender, what an insanely unpopular thread!