Should have?

I'm giving this my "Althouse the pedant" tag, so stop now if you don't like where this is going. I'm reading the headline at The Washington Post, "Why Scalia should have loved the Supreme Court’s Title VII decision."

The man is dead. There's NOTHING he should have done.

Why not say "Why Scalia would have loved the Supreme Court’s Title VII decision"? I think I know why. The article is by George Conway. It's in WaPo. I'm going to say: They don't want to concede that Scalia would have joined the majority in this case, that he would have stuck to his principles (and that this case was truly an instance where these principles dictated the outcome the majority reached).

"Days after Bon Appétit's editor in chief, Adam Rapoport, wrote in a May 31 newsletter that 'food is inherently political'..."

"... he again denied a pay raise for the only Black woman on the magazine's staff. Ryan Walker-Hartshorn... whose annual base salary is $35,300... had not received a pay increase in her tenure as Rapoport's assistant. Aside from her editorial duties, she said, she had cleaned Rapoport's golf clubs, fetched his son's passport, and taught his wife how to use Google Calendar. So, once again, the Stanford graduate asked for more money. 'I thought this conversation might be different this time,' Walker-Hartshorn said in a recent interview. After all, Condé Nast, the parent company of Bon Appétit, had just donated $1 million to racial-justice organizations amid global protests over the May 25 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.... Instead, Walker-Hartshorn says, Rapoport told her, 'Well, maybe you should consider that this is not the right job for you.' 'I am the only Black woman on his staff,' Walker-Hartshorn said. 'He treats me like the help.'"

From "Bon Appétit's editor in chief just resigned — but staffers of color say there's a 'toxic' culture of microaggressions and exclusion that runs far deeper than one man" (Business Insider).