The author makes the very strange mistake of confusing a person's mealtime banter with the supposed overconfidence of their legal reasoning. I find this a low-q

The author makes the very strange mistake of confusing a person's mealtime banter with the supposed overconfidence of their legal reasoning. I find this a low-quality gotcha, or possibly an extreme lack of social graces such that the author cannot understand the sensitivity to context that the judge has, which the author does not possess. > To return to my lunchtime debate with Justice Scalia: Biologically speaking, the case is airtight. “Meat” refers to the flesh of an animal. Fish are animals. So when we eat their flesh, we are, by definition, eating meat. That's Airtight? Is blood sausage with a vegetable casing meat? After all we make a distinction between flesh and blood. Or is it any animal product? Is then cheese made with animal rennet a meat? Is yeast a meat? Was it a meat before we understood biological taxa better, but no longer?