Sweet strains or pensive smiles

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate injects some snark into ordinarily dry legal commentary:

Throughout the morning it becomes increasingly clear that Scalia is the only member of the court who is being truly honest. His position: Sure, the display is religious and not secular. Let's put up some crosses, too, and have a revival meeting. In this sense, Scalia represents the vast majority of the protesters outside. They are not venerating the historical secular influence of the commandments, whatever the lawyers inside the courthouse may say. They just really like God.

I find snarky commentary like this much more interesting than Nina Totenberg's analyses. Snark often contains more truth than "objectivity".