5 ms·
I did see that, and I think that Cringley is--like many other people who haven't paid attention--seriously misinterpreting Scalia's history on the court. My ow
by ianamartin 11y ago
I did see that, and I think that Cringley is--like many other people who haven't paid attention--seriously misinterpreting Scalia's history on the court.
My own, admittedly amateur, interpretation is that he's largely internally consistent with his ideas of protecting person freedoms and advocating in favor of judicial restraint.
I see citizens united as an exanpsion of Scalia's attitude about protecting personal freedoms (and this is an expansion I disagree with, btw). His logic in Bergofell was that the court doesn't have the authority to meddle further in religious matters than it already has and needs to exercise restraint.
In my opinion, the argument is stronger in Bergofell than it is in Citizens United, even though I agree with the result of the former and disagree with the latter.
I could be incredibly wrong, but I think that over 30 years, Scalia has been a champion of individual rights and protections more often than not. Much to various people's chagrin at different times.
That has sometimes led to good results and sometimes led to bad. I feel comfortable in this case making the assertion that Scalia would have definitively come down on the side of Apple, and done so in the heavy-handed manner that he was known for and probably persuaded a fence justice like Kennedy to side with him in this case. But possibly also bringing RBG in with him at the same time.
Yes, it's all prognostication at this point, and I know that. But in my opinion, the bigger picture of Scalia outside of Citizens United and Obergefell are the history of someone who would have opposed the order against Apple.
Cringley is just being Cringely: bigoted, hateful, and wrong. As usual.
But then again, I could be really wrong. It does happen sometimes.
- rfreytag 11y agoHow is Cringely bigoted or hateful? I'm genuinely curious as I just don't see it. He can wrong, but then he is known to admit that. Please, several conclusive examples would be surprising to me and interesting.
- Zafira 11y agoI am uncertain how one could consider Scalia's jurisprudence as advocating civil liberties.
- briandear 11y agoBecause he's a strict Constitutionalist. I would suggest a review of his actual written opinions. They are spectacularly in favor of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. His Obamacare dissent is a great recent example: the civil liberty to not be compelled to buy a product. Also look at Texas v Johnson, Maryland v. King, Kyllo v. United, Florida v Jardines. Scalia would almost certainly be on Apple's side in this because it represents not a question of legislation but a question of the power of the state. It's easy to dislike Scalia based on decisions not going the way one's personal convictions would hope, but in questions regarding the power of the state, Scalia is very clear. Remember Scalia defended flag burning as well as opposing thermal imaging into a private home without a warrant. He also opposed involuntary DNA submission -- definitely read the opinions and not simply examine the outcomes.
- randominion 11y agoI love how people keep going back to him being a defender of state's rights, but conveniently forget about cases such as the Bush vs Gore recount, where he specifically took away the state's right to recount, with some disastrous consequences And there are other examples as well. People want/like to think of him as a defender of the Constitution. Great. But consistent, he never was.
- barney54 11y agoScalia's opinion in Heller is a good example helping to restore the 2nd Amendment as meaningful along with the 1st and 5th.
- s_q_b 11y agoAnd his opinion in Crawford v. Washington essentially restored the Confrontation Act of the Sixth Amendment. [0] I may have disagreed with Justice Scalia on a great many points, but he was one of the foremost defenders of the rights of criminal defendants. [0]Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
- kaitai 11y agoNot everyone's individual rights. I didn't see Scalia standing up for my right to do what I want with my female body, for instance. (I know the counterargument is that fetal rights are more important, but then the fact remains: not my rights.) Scalia also didn't think that women were protected from discriminatory laws under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (interview in California Lawyer, 2011). I just have to conclude he thought some individuals (and corporations) were more equal -- and have more rights -- than others.