Jeez, OK, then Bernie isn’t a socialist, Hitler wasn’t a nationalist socialist, Pol Pot wasn’t a communist, Che wasn’t wasn’t a mercenary, Cadtro is a saint, and the Pope is an atheist. Brilliant. As the false sun that blots the eyes of you leftists

Please, please, please explain to me how Scalia told you your life is worthless. Then explain why you care. But you can’t. So I won’t hold my breath. You are full of it. The truth is YOU think HIM worthless, without knowing even the first thing about him. Because you’re brainwashed.

How so? Why is it an impossibility to read a 17th century English text and also to read a 20th century text, and Shakespeare and Chaucer and the English translation of Ecclesiastes, and understand the words used in all? Also please explain how the Constitution is not the law of the land. Then from what does Obama…

How to deal with this? First, words have meaning. Also law is law. And the concept of “healthcare” would have been scarcely imaginable to the drafters and had it been at all the notion it should be a government provision would have been abhorrent to them. Finally, the Constitution abolished the slave trade, explicitly…

Several people on the court believe the original intent is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter to them. Some even go so far as to cite foreign popular opinion as authority. That is, sadly, the reality

But he doesn’t think it’s a right. And how I remember it the dissenting opinions including his spoke of the majority shutting down the democratic process, not letting it move forward. In other words they weren’t saying the public is against so we should be too. They were responding to the majority’s vague assertion of…

Also they didn't say the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Only that in that case is was being applied unconstitutionally.

You chose the Voting Rights Act. It gets complicated on these areas. The Civil War Amendments are the only amendments to grant power to the government. After a time use of that power can become disingenuous, bad faith, indefensible. It is fact based and case-by-case, just a different scenario than say one the Bill of…

You’ve got it backwards. If it’s a right and the voters go against it it’s blocked. If it’s not a right then it’s nothing for the court. If the public is in favor then it will be made legislation, which if not violative of a right is fine.

Yeah, well, I figured “good person” referred to his qualities as a human being not a jurist; which, you know, is a profession, not a popularity contest. I see now you think anyone with a different legal opinion from yours—and I doubt you are capable of forming an actual one anyway—is a “bad person.” Try that out next…

It's sad but funny how the bigots who are the left do not know the meaning of the word bigot but employ it gratuitously against their opposition. It means the in the inability to conceive a legitimate other opinion or belief. That would be you guys, not Scalia, whom you are obviously ignorant of

OK, you got me there. The old just repeat your argued-against statement of fact trick. Gets them every time. What exactly was he “revising” by the way? Seeing as how he was a self-proclaimed and universally acknowledged “originalist” I am confused...

Point taken, but he was dissenting from the entire line of precedent. A dissent is a protest. It's not unusual that a whole line of precedent be challenged in a dissent, or even overturned in a majority opinion. If not for that we would still be living under Plessy v. Ferguson.

It’s the difference between legislation and interpretation of legislation. We the people can do anything we want, through our legislatures, except when it runs afoul of the Constitution, which is a brake on the legislature’s—the majority’s—power. So we can pass a law recognizing same-sex relationships as identical to…

Is there a justice who has opined that private ownership of military class weapons is constitutionally protected? And they have all agreed in many cases, Brown v. Board of Education for example. Anyway your whole premise is flawed in that the Constitution is written in English, and I don’t mean old or middle but…

Good observation. Many laws we take for granted originate in Jim Crow. Minimum wage is another example.

Dissents aren't precedent.

No, Bush v. Gore was not “involvement in political decisions.” The Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court ordered recounts only in certain counties, those with Democrat majorities. 7-2 the United States Supreme Court ruled it violated the one person one vote principle, which obviously it did (mining votes from one…

Like? Seriously, “the one area that he was a decent person,” what “area” was that? And what are the “so many more that he wasn’t?” Only leftists can think such faulty language and shallow, hateful thinking a genuine retort to the jurisprudence of a SC justice.

It would be the “living constitutionalist”—those who think the text can mean whatever they want it to mean—who would be “revisionists.” You're using Orwellian language.