Reply to Scalia Can't Accurately Read Scalia

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Scalia Can't Accurately Read Scalia"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Are you back again?  OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".[/quote]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism.  One day he'll [b]write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing,[/b] and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.[/quote]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court follows Scalia on the Fourth amendment, including Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan.  See, e.g., April 29th:     http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/.  I can also provide you with articles in which Ginsburg says Scalia is right on fourth amendment issues.  Would you like that one too?[b][/quote]

I understand that Scalia occasionally lines up with "liberals" on 4th amendment and criminal justice issues (confrontation clause, sentencing, etc.)-- my point was that I think you would have a hard time going through all of his 4th amendment cases and concluding that he has applied his "originalist" philosophy consistently.

I don't really care that he or a clerk made the mistake, but if you are going to act like you are the smartest person in the room and write bitchy opinions (e.g., about how EPA is always trying to use cost-benefit analysis when they shouldn't) then you should expect some blowback when you get the facts wrong.

Also the poster(s) on this thread who keeps suggesting that the mistake was justified because he's a great man with a large family just seems bizarre-- a Scalia groupie or relative.[/quote]

Not "occasionally" read Ginsburg as of two days ago: "Scalia is often criticized by people who would not be labeled conservative. Liberals don't count his Fourth Amendment cases or the confrontation clause cases. He is one of the most pro-Fourth Amendment judges on the court."  http://www.businessinsider.in/Liberal-Supreme-Court-Justice-Comes-To-The-Defense-Of-Scalia/articleshow/34553634.cms.  Try again[/quote]

You really seem to be intentionally missing the point-- whether Scalia is "pro-Fourth Amendment" or not is more or less irrelevant to whether his jurisprudence is consistent or not.[/quote]

This is not about liberal or conservative outcomes.  It is about whether he sticks to a judicial philosophy.  He has shown quite a willingness to bend his logic to fit the result which agrees with his politics.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics