= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on How Much Should We Care What the Founding Fathers Thought About Anything? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (35)
I tried to find cases in which Scalia clearly ignored original meaning of the Constitution to serve his ideological agenda, but couldn't find any.
(This comment exists mostly to avoid comment publication bias, negative results are as valid as positive results.)
How about Gonzalez v. Raich or the very recent Citizens United v. FEC?
In neither of them Scalia seems to go against his originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
Wrt marijuana - both sides agreed that Congress had authority to regulate use of marijuana, and from this small scale use arguably followed. Wrt free speech - that's one of many defensible interpretations of what the First Amendment was supposed to mean.
The problem is stupid and ambiguous Constitution - you can "solve" it either by trying hard to apply it literally like Scalia until people fix it; or pretend it says something it doesn't like majority in Roe v. Wade.
Bush vs Gore?