Texas Wesleyan Law Review
In his dissent from the majority in Dickerson, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) argues that the Court "acts in plain violation of the Constitution when it denies effect to this Act of Congress." This Essay aims to show that an important part of the reasoning in his dissent is fallacious, and insofar as the dissent is influenced by this reasoning, it is without value. Because dissenting opinions generally, and those of the Supreme Court especially, can become valuable in subsequent legal opinions and analyses, and because logic has a clear and important role to play in legal reasoning, it is important to recognize when fallacies occur in dissenting Supreme Court opinions and to understand the precise nature of any such fallacy.
Rodney C. Roberts,
Dissent and Fallay in Dickerson v. United States,
Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/TWLR.V8.I1.1