5 ms·

I am uncertain how one could consider Scalia's jurisprudence as advocating civil liberties.

by Zafira 11y ago

briandear 11y ago
Because 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 ago
  I 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 ago
Scalia'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 ago
  And 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)

I am uncertain how one could consider Scalia's jurisprudence as advocating civil liberties.

by Zafira 11y ago

I am uncertain how one could consider Scalia's jurisprudence as advocating civil liberties.

Because 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 ago
I 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 ago

Scalia'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 ago
And 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)