Then the actual email chain was released, making the exchange sound pretty innocuous.

And yet, another reporter saying essentially the same thing about the thin-skin of the WH.

So, is Bob Woodward looking for another 15 minutes of fame?  Or is this about something else?  From the first link:

The Woodward reporting has caused the White House spin machine to sputter at a crucial time. The president was running around the country, campaign-style, warning that Republicans were at fault for the massive cuts set to hit Friday. What Obama never says: It was his own staff that proposed sequestration, and the tax hikes he now proposes -- aimed at replacing half of the cuts -- were never part of that very specific plan.

The White House instead has, with great success, fudged the facts. The administration has convinced a majority of the country that Republicans are more to blame by emphasizing that Republicans voted for the plan. Which they did -- after Obama conceived it.

The truth is that Obama and Republicans supported it because everyone believed it was a such a stupid idea that the grown-ups in Washington would never actually let it happen. They thought Obama and Congress would come up with a grand bargain on spending, entitlement cuts and tax increases, instead of allowing the sequestration ax to fall.

They were wrong.

So the blame game is in full swing -- and Woodward is smack in the middle of it. The Obama White House is out to discredit him. Behind the scenes, Obama allies are spreading word that the Woodward book broadly -- and his reporting on sequestration specifically -- are misleading because Republicans, especially House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, were so clearly among the chief sources.

It is no secret on Capitol Hill that Cantor and his staff cooperated extensively with Woodward. It is fairly obvious as you breeze through the opening chapters of the book. But we have talked with many Democrats and Republicans who cooperated with the book. And all of them say that while they might dispute some of the broader analytical points Woodward makes, the play-by-play is basically spot on.

You're Going To See All Day

Mitchell Marcus, the basketball team manager for Coronado High School in El Paso, Texas, is developmentally disabled. He loves the game, but isn't able to play competitively. Nonetheless, Coach Peter Morales decided to put him in a game against Franklin High School.

His teammates wanted to give Mitchell a chance to sink a basket. But even after several attempts, Mitchell was unsuccessful. Franklin High School gained possession of the ball. That's when Franklin High player Jonathan Montanez passed the ball to Mitchell for one more shot. Watch the video to see what happened next.

That Scalia is spouting this stuff should surprise no one. What I find concerning is the reasoning he uses to support his view. He seems to believe that judges have the right? power? mandate? whatever to strike down legislation that the judge decides has become such an entrenched "entitlement" that members of Congress are afraid to vote to abolish it out of fear that voters will reject those politicians.

Viewed in context, however, Scalia's quote is actually even more disturbing than the initial headlines suggested. Beyond whatever resentments Justice Scalia may hold, his "racial entitlements" statement was also part of a broader theory about the proper role of judges in society. And if that theory were taken seriously by a majority of the justices, it would potentially undermine Medicare, Social Security and countless other programs.

This article by Ian Milhiser explains how Scalia's comments could be used by conservative judges to overturn any law passed by Congress that fails to pass conservative muster.

I am unnerved at the idea of a conservative judiciary shredding what remains of the the New Deal and quashing any new efforts by Congress to deal with for example, our epidemic of income inequality.