Scalia is a Scoundrel

Here is a book FULL of examples.http://www.amazon.com/...me-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095Can you name a liberal, long standing member of the supreme court, past or present, that you think is not a scoundrel? If so, name him or her, and I'll see what I can find.

Oh okay, I can do that. I was just following the example set in the O/P, it was little more than a link & c/p. I'd like to see you elaborate, (in your own words) just what you think Scalia did. You seemed to indicate a major distinction between "precisely literally" and "context". Context is defined as the "weaving together of words". Is there a really huge difference in what he did from one year to the next? Could he say that he got one year older and one year wiser, and adjusted his decision making process somewhat? Is that a crime? Nowhere in the constitution is Supreme Court expressly given the authority to interject itself, or foreign governments into federal and state operations. Let's look at a few quotes from some other than Scalia;Thorgood Marshall, when asked about his judicial philosophy;

quote:

---

"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

---

A scoundrel? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a speech,

quote:

---

"The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a spare five times and only twice in a majority decision....nor does the U.S. Supreme Court note the laws or decisions of other nations with any frequency.

---

Maybe because it's not their job to do that Ruth, unless they're searching to do something they're not authorized to do. She continues;

quote:

---

"When Justice Breyer referred in 1997 to federal systems in Europe, dissenting from a decision in which I also dissented, the majority responded: We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting the constitution."

---

WOW what scoundrels, they actually understand what their job is, kind of like Scalia still does even today!!! She continues:

quote:

---

" In my view, comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and enforcing human rights. We are losers if we neglect what others can tell us about endeavors to eradicate bias against women, minorities and other disadvantaged groups."

---

We are losers if we neglect what others can tell CONGRESS, THE SENATE, OR THE PRESIDENT about these endeavors, but not the judiciary.Is Scalia a scoundrel, just because he's conservative? It's strange to me how the NY times (and you) pick this exact time to hammer on Scalia. The extreme left just scored a huge victory with the gay marriage thing. The left is pretty masterful with the gloat and taunt thing, but I suspect the negative attention towards Scalia is a fear of his concise, common sense comments on these activist Supreme Court decisions. They resonate with a LOT of people, some of them are people whose support and votes the Democrats don't want to lose.Do you need any more examples of Supreme Court justices chosing their interpretive scheme to fit their desired ends?

My message 9 did that, and by asking you a legitimate question about other judges, the discussion could have gone into more detail in comparing human characteristics of judges. But you didn't answer that question, you responded only by requesting something more than bare links, as if more than a bare link was required before you could answer my question.So in message 12, I complied with your request, easily proving that liberals on the court are far worse than anything you've provided about Scalia, concerning opinionated rulings. But you've provided very little about Scalia's actions that you disapprove of thus far, and you've specifically addressed nothing from my message 12. During work today I was anticipating analyzing some of Anthony Kennedy's methods of choosing his interpretive scheme to fit his desired ends this evening, but I see it's way too soon for that. That's because your guess was wrong. I was giving a general overview of how the opinions of activist, liberal judges are much more involved in their decision making than are the opinions of the more originalist judges like Antonin Scalia.The terms "originalist" and "activist" judges are fairly widely recognized - Wikipedia, not exactly a conservative source, describes them;Originalism - WikipediaandJudicial activism - WikipediaAs you can see, the judges personal opinion is much more involved in liberal judges decisions than in conservative (originalist) judges opinions, like Scalia's.I just genuinely don't understand how those on the left condemn conservative judges for having an opinion of ANY kind, however mild and minuscule compared to their overall decisions, and give a free pass to liberal judges for having opinions that are a huge part in their decisions. I can only guess that it's simply because they like liberal decisions, and don't like conservative ones. But, in condemning conservatives, they act like the opinion itself is the problem. It's a double standard. It works on a quick, surface drive by like a NY Times editorial, and in a love fest among liberals, but as we can see from your inability to answer almost ANY of my questions, it crashes and burns when subjected to a detailed discussion. In other words, crash and burn. If you decide to elaborate more on "Scalia's scurrilous behavior", or answer anymore of my legitimate questions, then we can continue. Otherwise I'm finished in this thread, and I'll check out for awhile. But this place is like the Hotel California, I can check out, but I can never leave.