# Justices Kagan and Scalia **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368 "2011-01-12T18:23:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 43
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/43 "2011-01-12T20:13:42Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Justice Stevens in _Heller_ based his dissent in Orignialism. So who was right? Scalia or Stevens? Scalia, who based his opinion on textualism, not originalism. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As such Scalia is doing the same thing the liberals are and just pretending he is guided by some higher notion. Thus my OP. If Scalia is merely pretending, then how does he end up on the “opposite” side? In other words, a justice who resolutely follows a process, regardless of his personal preferences, would be expected to have a number of cases where he ruled in opposition to his preferences. A justice that picks his outcome ahead of time would not. Surely you agree that Scalia, if giving his preferences free reign, would side with the corporate interests and not the debtor? He’d side with the government for the ability to search with infrared, not the citizen to be protected from that search. So my point is that your claim doesn’t hold water. Scalia is NOT doing the same thing; his presence on the “wrong” side proves it. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368)._