Regular readers will recall my surprise at the Scalia/Thomas split on COPA. Apparently they don’t disagree as infrequently as I had supposed, and this analysis makes an argument that it’s due to genuine differences in judicial philosophy and reasoning. And since the philosophy attributed to Thomas requires an absence of critical thinking, I find the argument persuasive.
Eleven and a half years later, TNR seems to have removed that article. Here is the Wayback Machine’s version.