4 ms·

This. Scalia was widely advertised as a strict textualist, until of course it wasn't convenient (c.f. Heller) and then he was quite willing to both ignore prec

by evgen 6y ago

This. Scalia was widely advertised as a strict textualist, until of course it wasn't convenient (c.f. Heller) and then he was quite willing to both ignore precedent and slice and dice the constitution to fit his desired outcome.

Kephael 6y ago
You're a liar arguing from a bad faith position if you think Heller was decided wrongly. Leftism is really a religion.
jki275 6y ago
Scalia's opinion in Heller is a history lesson, and it's a very careful one. The decision is strictly in line with his judicial philosophy of strictly interpreting the document as it was written.
- evgen 6y ago
  Scalia's opinion is a lesson in judicial activism and a rather poorly constructed one that serves as an object lesson in how to cherry-pick facts that can be constructed to lead to your previously determined decision. It had nothing to do with the document as it was written, as we have a significant body of historical research into what clauses of the 2nd amendment mean when written as well as a long body of precedent about that amendment which was all ignored so that Scalia could legislate from the bench.
  - jki275 6y ago
    There's literally zero precedent on the 2nd Amendment other than Miller, a badly written opinion on a case that was guaranteed to fail for political reasons and applied specifically to NFA short barreled shotguns. Scalia didn't write judicial activism. Nothing he ever wrote was judicial activism. "legislate from the bench?" Come on now. If you like the first amendment, the second exists to protect it. If you don't believe the second amendment exists (and that the opinion you've just stated), then the first doesn't either. The second amendment is the second most strict language in the entire Constitution. "Shall make no law", and "shall not be infringed". You should read Heller -- you clearly have not. He carefully documented all of your arguments and destroyed them. Heller is one of the very few decisions that's come from the bench in the last 60 years that actually strictly respected the exact words of the Constitution for exactly what they said.
    - evgen 6y ago
      There was significant precedent on the 2A, I did read Heller, and happened to do my university thesis on US Constitutional and Legal History. Mine was a crim pro focus but still trod similar ground back in the early 90s when Miller and Lewis were the precedents to cite, and a significant part of the years of coursework and months of research was going to actual source on things like what was meant by certain terms and supporting material in the time they were written. I assure you that I know more about this subject than you or whatever NRA pamphlet you last read on the subject. Heller is an embarrassment to Scalia's carefully cultivated image and will eventually be viewed as his Dred Scott.
      - jki275 6y ago
        It's funny people can write papers on things and then believe they know better than a sitting SCOTUS justice who is known for NOT being a judicial activist. Your politics are showing through. It's okay, you're not a judge and won't be. I don't read "NRA Pamphlets", I read Heller numerous times. I've studied just about everything that's been written on the 2nd Amendment. Dred Scott removed rights from people. Heller applied the document as it was meant to be, enforcing the Constitution.

by evgen 6y ago

Kephael 6y ago

You're a liar arguing from a bad faith position if you think Heller was decided wrongly. Leftism is really a religion.

jki275 6y ago

Scalia's opinion in Heller is a history lesson, and it's a very careful one. The decision is strictly in line with his judicial philosophy of strictly interpreting the document as it was written.

evgen 6y ago
Scalia's opinion is a lesson in judicial activism and a rather poorly constructed one that serves as an object lesson in how to cherry-pick facts that can be constructed to lead to your previously determined decision. It had nothing to do with the document as it was written, as we have a significant body of historical research into what clauses of the 2nd amendment mean when written as well as a long body of precedent about that amendment which was all ignored so that Scalia could legislate from the bench.
- jki275 6y ago
  There's literally zero precedent on the 2nd Amendment other than Miller, a badly written opinion on a case that was guaranteed to fail for political reasons and applied specifically to NFA short barreled shotguns. Scalia didn't write judicial activism. Nothing he ever wrote was judicial activism. "legislate from the bench?" Come on now. If you like the first amendment, the second exists to protect it. If you don't believe the second amendment exists (and that the opinion you've just stated), then the first doesn't either. The second amendment is the second most strict language in the entire Constitution. "Shall make no law", and "shall not be infringed". You should read Heller -- you clearly have not. He carefully documented all of your arguments and destroyed them. Heller is one of the very few decisions that's come from the bench in the last 60 years that actually strictly respected the exact words of the Constitution for exactly what they said.
  - evgen 6y ago
    There was significant precedent on the 2A, I did read Heller, and happened to do my university thesis on US Constitutional and Legal History. Mine was a crim pro focus but still trod similar ground back in the early 90s when Miller and Lewis were the precedents to cite, and a significant part of the years of coursework and months of research was going to actual source on things like what was meant by certain terms and supporting material in the time they were written. I assure you that I know more about this subject than you or whatever NRA pamphlet you last read on the subject. Heller is an embarrassment to Scalia's carefully cultivated image and will eventually be viewed as his Dred Scott.
    - jki275 6y ago
      It's funny people can write papers on things and then believe they know better than a sitting SCOTUS justice who is known for NOT being a judicial activist. Your politics are showing through. It's okay, you're not a judge and won't be. I don't read "NRA Pamphlets", I read Heller numerous times. I've studied just about everything that's been written on the 2nd Amendment. Dred Scott removed rights from people. Heller applied the document as it was meant to be, enforcing the Constitution.