Legal Commentary

It seems fair to say that, among legal scholars, Chief Justice Roberts's reference to the work of baseball umpires, and his suggestion that the work of the Court's justices should resemble, somehow, that of umpires, has not been greeted with wild approval.  But, according to this news story, it appears that the Chief Justice was spot-on and prescient.  A bit:

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of Wright v. Dreckman, which calls into question professional baseball player David Wright's 2005 check swing against the San Diego Padres and whether or not the resulting strike call should be upheld.

. . .  Thus far, legal and baseball experts remain uncertain as to how the court will rule in Wright v. Dreckman.

"I think this decision could go either way," Baseball Tonight legal analyst John Kruk said. "Several of the justices, such as [Antonin] Scalia, are originalists who believe in the strict interpretation the baseball rulebook as it was first written. That document clearly states that a decision on the check swing ultimately falls on the umpire. However, there are those pragmatists on the court, such as Justice Breyer, who believe in the living, flexible rulebook."

Added Kruk: "And then there is Justice [Samuel] Alito, who is an idiot, and moreover has never watched a baseball game in his life."

(HT:  The Onion.)