Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Not really true, Thomas is a bit closer to my beliefs than Scalia was, but I do think that Judge Scalia was in a better position to know how the legal system in the US works than most here.
Scalia was a textualist, which meant that he tried to apply the law as written. On the flip side, he was a bit more of a follower of stare decisis (let the decision stand, the legal doctrine that one should refrain from disturbing a settled point of law, even if the decision was wrong) than I like.
One should not simply conclude that if one disagrees with you that they have bad intentions. Most of Scalia's decisions were based on one of those two principles.
Most people point to the 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith where Scala wrote the majority decision as the decision where Scalia did not "practice what he preaches". That case has been analyzed many times. I'm not a big fan of the result of the decision, I'm a bit more of a libertarian than that, but as Scalia said, just because something is bad policy doesn't make it unconstitutional. The idea that one can restrict certain activities that are associated with a given religion is commonly accepted. None of the Constitutional freedoms are absolute. The question is where do you draw the line.
|
It is interesting that there is one specific big case that people refer to (1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith). I did not dig into Scalia that deeply yet, but I am unconvinced that it only happened once. A review of a book you recommended made me come to the conclusion that it [his book] is propaganda.
For me, being German and having grown up in the eastern part until it got swallowed up by the western part, any kind of propaganda is evil. Both the one with good and bad intentions. Let me tell you that the reunification of Germany was not a two sided deal, it very much was one sided. Don't let history books fool you.