Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
I'm sure Cali's baiting me, but I'll bite anyway.
I haven't read the opinions yet (though I cheer the decision, based on what I've heard), but the originalism dig by Cali is a complete red herring. As if Thomas or Scalia ever claimed that all decisions they make are originalist. Scalia has in fact said the exact opposite.
The results-oriented dig is also complete nonsense. I've heard Scalia speak a number of times of cases where his originalist approach has led him to a decision that he personally disagrees with. "Results-oriented" is the short definition of "judicial activist," and the ideological side most guilty of that is the Left.
Cf. Current Prop 8 challenge in federal court.
|
You tell me- why shouldn't they "all" be originalist- at least in areas where the founders spoke? The concept of an "individual" was well-established at the founding. On what originalist premise is it extended to corporations? Or do we not care that the definition of "individual" today means something different than it meant back at the founding? If we don't care about changes in the definition of that word, from an originalist perspective, then why care about changes in definitions of other words?
Could it be that originalism isn't, and never has been, and never can be, the anchor you want it to be?
Forgive me if I chuckle a bit that Scalia's statement that he isn't results oriented is conclusive proof that he isn't results oriented.