Because there are also naturalized citizens. Everybody knows that -- or should.
How stupid does Larry Klayman think Scalia is? How stupid does he think his own readers are?
And how stupid is Klayman, if he doesn't understand the difference between citizens from birth and naturalized citizens?
If Scalia were this easily "flummoxed" I'd be worried, but I don't think he was.
If you argue and listen to arguments for a living, as a lawyer or judge does, you may not want to waste time in your off-hours arguing with amateurs or cranks or listening to their theories.
Larry Klayman has to clear up the backlog of Clinton scandals before he tries to float any new theories.
What happened with all those Clinton theories? Which are true? Which are not? Which are still worth pursuing? Which aren't?
They all just dried up when Clinton left office.
If you argue and listen to arguments for a living, as a lawyer or judge does, you may not want to waste time in your off-hours arguing with amateurs or cranks or listening to their theories.
I would not think that it should be any great difficulty for a knowledgable judge to explain the meaning of a long used legal term. Saying he doesn't know is admitting incompetence in his legal understanding. Would he be so confused on the meaning of the words "right to bear arms" ?