Scalia on Peter Robinson's "Uncommon Knowledge"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In other words, you want the Constitution to mean what you think it means, as determined by your standard of "originalism," which effectively means identifying anything in the early history of the nation which may be construed as supporting a position you have already adopted and then using that information as a bludgeon against anyone who adopts a different standard of interpretation than your own arbitrary standard of interpretation. Got it.

That's not what originalism means (at least, as defined by Scalia). But even with its flaws, it's better than relying on foreign law to inform your decisions. Originalism provides a framework for at least trying to exercise some restraint.

Ginsburg's method is a free-for-all for the views of whoever happens to be sitting on the bench. Maybe you'd like to define for us the criteria for which foreign law to include, beyond "I just like it!"

Mark Steyn ably points out, "By 'listening to others,' Justice Ginsburg means, in effect, Europe, Canada and one or two other places: There's no suggestion she's interested in Saudi jurists' views on capital punishment for sodomy or Yemeni precedents on women's rights."