carolinafan wrote:Is that strictly a liberal disposition to vote according to one's beliefs rather than following the law? Because Scalia certainly has a right-wing slant to his decisions.
Examples please.
Scalia is an originalist. Which means he doesn't believe that the court has a right, in a representative republic, to substitute its opinions for those of the electorate, except where specifically and expressly provided for in the constitution. Liberals find that philosophy to be "right-wing" because it doesn't allow them to do end-runs around the democratic process in order to ram their loony agenda down our throats.
The central purpose of the constitution was to protect individual liberty from government oppression. It did this by itemizing limited spheres of federal government authority, and reserving all other powers to the states and individuals. That way, if an individual didn't like the laws of one state (community, etc.), he could move to another. He could congregate with others of like values, allowing him the freedom to find or create a place in which he could pursue his definition of the good life relatively unhindered. Activist liberal judges have pretty much demolished that possibility...and thus the very ideas our nation was conceived upon. They have relentlessly expanded the power of the federal government to where it is now meddling in every aspect of our lives. And they have invented so many constitutional "rights" that there is no longer an option to move away; liberal values and restrictions will be imposed on you no matter where you live.
If given the opportunity, Scalia would certainly overturn Roe v. Wade (possibly the worst-reasoned case in the history of the Supreme Court). Query: does that make him a "right-wing" activist judge? Why or why not?
