William Saletan argues that Justice Scalia, in arguing that the Court has an inconsistent view of the capacities of minors, is guilty of an inconsistency of his own. Scalia’s dissent in the juvenile death-penalty case notes that the Court has struck down parental-notification laws because some minors are capable of making the abortion decision themselves just as adults are. He asks how the Court can deny that some minors are capable of committing crimes for which they should be held responsible, just as adults are. Saletan argues that Scalia’s criticism does not apply to every justice—which Scalia didn’t say. Saletan also says of Scalia that “by taking the opposite side in both cases, he’s flop-flipped.”

As phrased, Saletan’s conclusion is just a non sequitur. Saletan assumes that what’s driving the outcomes of these cases is a view of the capacities of minors. But what’s driving Scalia’s decisions is not a theory about the capacities of minors. Rather, he has a theory about which branch of government the Constitution gives the power to make those determinations. There’s no inconsistency in finding that the Constitution lets legislatures both pass parental-notification laws on abortion and expose juvenile offenders to the death penalty. And there’s no reason why a justice who finds these things can’t point out the inconsistencies on the other side.