Ms. Mizner: Well, this Court has espoused a warrant presumption…
Justice Scalia: Well, but that — that presumption is — is simply not — you don’t believe that presumption, do you?
Mr. Rosenthal: But we’re not—we’re not dealing with that hypothetical.
Justice Scalia: I know we’re not. That’s why it’s a hypothetical.
Justice Scalia: I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.
Justice Scalia: I’m curious, when -when did – when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes – some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When – when – when did the law become this?
Mr. Olsen: When – may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.
Justice Scalia: If we cannot have moral feeling against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?
Justice Breyer: Use whatever word you want. Manifest disregard, stick to the law. Now, suppose the arbitrator had said this, it doesn’t say how to do it. I see how you do it, you get out a magic 8-ball. Now, we would strike that down because that is not relevant. But he didn’t say magic 8-ball. He said class. And there are many class arbitrations. So it isn’t quite magic 8-ball. Now, you explain to me –
Justice Scalia: What’s a magic 8-ball? I don’t know what you are talking about.
Justice Breyer: A magic 8-ball is you have – that’s a little thing, it’s the – it’s a non-sportsman’s equivalent of throwing darts.