not select him for the Chief Justice job so he could sew some Rhenquist braid (stolen from a USN uniform shop) on his nasty little robe.

I think that rejection will color his decision making forever and always. He holds a grudge, I suspect. Maybe his unreasonable anger will tax his heart and force him to resign to rest/recuperate.

I'm not sure if that is an impeachable offense (or what is).

a lack of judicial temperament is not an impeachable offense. But as I mentioned earlier, it is not a way to win friends. And as human nature has it, such bullying conduct is likely to result in the bullied (and those the detest bullying) forming coalitions against you.

Even a Court of Common Pleas Judge. Tony has let his success go to his head.

some pundits say he is:

"But enter A. Scalia ... He has taken his opinion writing to a whole 'nother place. His opinions are chalk full of disconnected and false factoids, flawed logical and legal reasoning; but more pointedly, personal attacks on other Justices."

And your speculation is interesting. I think he is just smart enough, and has just enough self-control, to realize that he had better dial it back a little to avoid those developments. He doesn't want to get pushed off as long as a Democrat can name his replacement--and maybe even if a Repub. can.

It's not about being smart ... well it is ... but when you have convinced yourself that you are the smartest person in the room, you come to believe yourself bullet-proof.

Scalia reminds me of a law school (Contracts/Business Law) professor that I had. From what I understand, as an adjunct professor, he was widely considered brilliant legal scholar in the area of Contract Law. His love for the law came through in his classes and while he was a grueling practitioner of the Socratic Method, everyone came out of the course far better for it.

Then, he was granted tenure and his teaching style began to change ... He went from questioning to guide students to an answer (i.e., the Socratic Method) to questioning to humiliate the student ... learning be damned. The students couldn't challenge him because he was the professor and when other faculty members commented on his approach, he laughed it off saying he was "just preparing the next generation for a hostile Bench." So he felt he was bullet-proof ... he could beat up anyone, anyway he wanted, including his peers ... his 20 year career taught him that.

By the time, I had him the faculty clearly detested him and a few were openly hostile towards him. But in his mind, the hostility was jealousy/envy-based (sound familiar?).

Then, during my last year, the Dean of the Law school and the Chair of the Board of Regents announced a new initiative aimed at increasing minority/economically disadvantaged admissions and retention. This professor was livid ... "Affirmative Action effort was clearly reverse-discrimination and will be the down-fall of (the school's) good standing." He began using his lecture time and the student press to voice his opinion. And when he was told to stop, he began attacking the school's administration for "attempting to stifle his 1st Amendment rights (sound familiar?)."

When his attacks went from attacking the initiative to personal attacks on those that opposed his commentary, he was placed on sabbatical, from which he never returned. And it is my understanding, his faculty-peers were the one's that engineered his removal.

We can only hope for as much for Justice Scalia.

to remove itself from politics and rule objectively?