yogsloth: Do you have anything in your pocket other than gay marriage?
budejovice: Yep.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided & should be overturned. (Jun 1992)
Miranda rights can be overruled by Congress. (Jun 2000)
Opposed banning homosexual sodomy laws. (Aug 2004)
Limit employer liability for sexual harassment by employees. (Jun 1998)
Employee must prove negligence to sue city for harassment. (Jun 1998)
State laws should not protect gay rights. (May 1996)
Can only sue for direct results of corporate negligence. (Jun 2011)
Government is not responsible for abuses in private prisons. (Jul 2009)
Shorten time between sentencing and executions. (Apr 2000)
Sentences should stand despite crack-vs.-powder rule change. (Jun 2011)
Roadblocks with drug-sniffing dogs are OK. (Nov 2000)
Taxpayer funding OK for parochial school materials. (Jun 2000)
Clean Air Act displaced federal common law on CO2 emissions. (Jun 2011)
Can't sue polluters after they stop polluting. (Jan 2000)
Limit CWA restrictions to navigable waterways. (Jan 2001)
Migratory birds don't extend CWA to isolated waters. (Jan 2001)
Rape victims cannot sue their alleged attackers. (May 2000)
Vienna Convention treaty not binding on US courts. (Mar 2008)
Corporate political spending is free speech. (Jan 2010)
Felons may possess guns unless state explicitly prohibits it. (Jun 1998)
States cannot ban cigarette ads near schools. (Jun 2001)
States have no authority to protect patient rights. (Jun 2002)
All-male military schools like VMI should stay all-male. (Dec 2003)
I find much of the above to be morally reprehensible (evil). I understand you do not.
All I see is a lot of oversimplification of complex legal matters.
Justice is supposed to be blind as all people are created equal. This means that if someone commits a crime they must face the consequences regardless of who they are. It's not supposed to matter if they are rich, poor, famous, unemployed, white, black, brown, gay, straight or politically connected; everyone should be equal under the law. There are many people whose view of the law changes from case to case depending on the identities of either the plaintiffs, defendants or both, unfortunately some of these people are judges. Justice Scalia was not one of these judges, his rulings were always consistent with strict reading of the Constitution. Where the wording led to vagueness of interpretation he relied on clearly laid out intents of those who wrote the words. For matters not covered by the Constitution he would defer to the sovereignty of the states as this is found in both the text and intent of the Constitution. For example, he ruled in favor of the Freedom of Speech regardless of what statements were made (such as flag burning or violent video games) or who was making them. He sided with laws which were properly passed and not strictly forbidden by the constitution, many of the examples quoted here prove that point. For example; Miranda Rights are not a constitutional requirement, they were created by the legal system to address certain abuses by law enforcement and could therefore be overturned or suspended by the same legal system provided the new laws did not violate the 4th or 5th amendments. Using a drug sniffing dog at a police checkpoint has no analog in the Bill of Rights and is within the purview of local law makers, but collecting DNA falls under the Search and Seizure category of the 4th amendment so it cannot be done without a warrant. It never mattered to Justice Scalia who was being represented in the court or what social implications his ruling could have, he was always consistent in his application of constitutional law. This is exactly the type of person everyone should want on the Supreme Court, but sadly there are many out there who would rather have the rule of law show favoritism to certain viewpoints or ideologies; and they have the audacity to claim it is for "fairness" or "equality".
