What's Scalia been smoking?
Or as David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy puts it somewhat more respectfully than I can muster:
(2) Justice Scalia's concurrence, unlike Justice Thomas's dissent, does not address the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. This reflects a pattern with Scalia, apparent also in his affirmative action, First Amendment, and other opinions: he is much more likely to resort to originalist arguments when they can be used to undermine Warren Court precedents that conflict with his deeply held moral and political views than when such arguments would either undermine his political views or challenge precedents that are not on the social conservative (tempered, as in First Amendment cases, by Scalia's academic elitist solicitude (which I share) for freedom of expression) «hit list.»
Fortunately, I limit my «medicine» to wine and other ethanol products (and not much of them) these days and Scalia made the right decision there.
Barrapunto
BlogMemes
CoRank
Delicious
Digg
Enchílame
Fresqui Ocio
Furl
Google Bookmarks
Menéame
Netscape
Newsvine
Reddit
Rojo
Spurl
Stumbleupon
Technorati Favorites
Yahoo MyWeb
Write a comment
No trackbacks
No comments
Be the first to write a comment on this post.
Write a comment
If you want to add your comment on this post, simply fill out the next form:
* Required fields
You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>.
No trackbacks
To notify a mention on this post in your blog, enable automated notification (Options > Discussion in WordPress) or specify this trackback url: http://www.tom-hanna.org/wp-trackback.php?p=750