Supreme Court decision on obamacare; take away: Scalia is a big (fat) idiot

25 Jun

Share This:

so this post isn’t really about the merits of the obamacare decision, though I’m obviously elated with the outcome. Rather, it is a response to a particar assertion of Scalia in his awful and melodramatic dissent.  Scalia alleges: “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery.” Can we say hypocrite??

specifically, I’m referring to Scalia’s interpretation of the constitution which is that a fourth amendment intrusion based on race is constitutional. How do you reconcile this with the language in the fourteenth amendment which specifinally says that the law cannot discriminate on the basis of race?

Scalia takes the stance that money = speech?  I’ve re read the first amendment many times because I can’t seem to find that in there anywhere.

scalia was for the demolition of the voting rights act, despite its plain language, reasoning that the statute relies on data that was 40 years old. Um, since when is that a principle of statutory interpretation or law? Isn’t that essentially coming up with a reason to nullify the law in favor of your own philosophy?

Finally, can Scalia please tell me where it says anywhere that the “originalists” intended us to look deep into their minds when decided what text means?  Did the “originalists” say that the meaning of the constitution could not change with the times?

 

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. ugh - juicejusticeandcorgis - February 19, 2016

    […] I been sayin that Scalia is not a true textualist or originalist or whatever else everyone claims to respect him […]

Leave a Reply