In the 2015 case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem should list their birthplace as “Jerusalem” (as was the practice since Israel’s founding) or “Jerusalem, Israel” (as advocated by Zivotofsky). The court ruled that passports could continue to list only Jerusalem as the birthplace. Scalia, in opposition, criticized the judgment of the majority, saying what about their reasoning?
A. He stated that their reasoning was “the ultimate in chutzpah.”
B. He stated that their reasoning was a “leap worthy of the Mad Hatter.”
C. He stated that “this is the first time that my liberal colleagues on the court have accepted my originalist view of the Constitution, that only the thoughts and intentions of our founders could shape our decisions on the profound questions before us. However, in this case, they are wrong to apply that standard. The fact that our founders did not mention Israel almost 200 years before its establishment in 1948 does not mean that they would have rejected the inclusion of that country’s name alongside the name of the holy city of Jerusalem.”
D. He stated that their reasoning is “jiggery-pokery, pure applesauce.”
E. He stated that their reasoning is “yisgadaly v’yiskadashy, pure gribenes.”