# Sandra O'Connor Resigns - Democrats Will Find "Extraordinary Circumstances" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712 "2005-07-01T15:53:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/261 "2005-07-10T15:17:37Z")
> [@](#): > > A shaky Federal law is stronger than a handful of state laws. Were Roe V. Wade overturned, I could see teenagers being arrested for crossing state lines to obtain state-sanctioned abortions. Since they’re not residents of the state that sanctions abortions, the state they reside in has outlawed them and they would, I am wagering, be in violation of the law for being a resident of said state, but obtaining an abortion anyway by crossing state lines. It is not much of a stretch to imagine such. I can drive to Virginia and buy fireworks. Heck, I can buy tons of fireworks in Virginia. I can set them off in my driveway, too. Make a big loud show. I could that is, if I were a resident of Virginia. > > Can I drive my car back to New York where I live to use them? I can not. Why? Because I am allowed to drive to Virginia but I am not allowed to drive to Virginia to obtain fireworks that are legal in Virginia and then drive back to New York State where fireworks are illegal and set them off. That’s a crime. Do state troopers routinely hang just over the state line, waiting to do spot checks on certain vehicles that were parked a mile inside the next state’s border at a Fireworks shop? Yes they do. Huh? Certainly a state can outlaw possession and use of certain items, and prevent their entry into the state. But services? A resident of Utah can travel to Nevada to engage the services of a licensed brothel, and then return to Utah without legal consequence. > [@](#): > > I am fearful that the similar state’s powers will be quickly enacted to cover abortions. A woman living in Ohio can drive over to Pennsylvania for work every day ( doubtless quite a few do ) but what she can **not** do is get an abortion in Pennsylvania while showing a residence in Ohio- if the laws are left to a state-by-state patchwork of control and regulation and Ohio has outlawed abortions for residents of its state. Again, this doesn’t follow. I am much more fearful of the federal government attempting to prevent interstate abortions. For instance, check out this gem: [H.R. 748: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-748) I was going to make a point about the Mann Act, but I see it was amended back in 1986 to proscribe only “sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002421----000-.html](http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002421----000-.html) That means that a judge whose religion deems abortion immoral would have to conclude that abortion was “sexual activity,” which is a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/262 "2005-07-10T15:42:00Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > Judges like Scalia who are dedicated to pure and linear interpretation of the Constitution word for word as written, opposed to interpretation and expansion of the concepts and ideals of our Constitution might well be glad to shut down outlets of free speech that are deemed to be seditious. I can easily see that argument being made, and sailing through a Court that has become overwhelmingly Conservative. Well, here’s the problem with Scalia as a textualist. He likes cases like [Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52 (1926)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=272&invol=52) . [ORIGINALISM: THE LESSER EVIL](http://web.syr.edu/~jrkarp/scalia.html) (discussing _Myers_ as an example of his style of interpretation. As I have pointed out [elsewhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6276967&postcount=60) , \*Myers \* puts original intent above the text of the constitution, which is anti-textualist. But Scalia claims he doesn’t do that: > [@](#): > > You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret leaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. [http://web.archive.org/web/19970108070805/http://www.courttv.com/library/rights/scalia.html](http://web.archive.org/web/19970108070805/http://www.courttv.com/library/rights/scalia.html) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/263 "2005-07-10T15:45:19Z")
Elsewhere should be [elsewhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6276967&postcount=60). ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/264 "2005-07-10T17:00:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Really? What court cases are you basing that asertion on? **SDMB** rules explicitly prohibit wholesale insertion of copyrighted material. So, I am not in a position to copy and paste the entire in-depth article including copious face to face interview time with Justice Scalia that appeared in The New Yorker. Please feel free to search for it, however. 🙂 My assertions are based upon his self-professed points of view regarding his position on the bench. Nothing more. **Gfactor** , sure it follows. It doesn’t have precedent yet because the Justices have not been named, and state law has not been empowered by the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Just because a state has not barred a citizen of that state from crossing their lines into a neighboring state to obtain services that they have deemed illegal doesn’t mean it cannot happen. 230 years ago, would anyone have guessed that an entire city in the United States would be ( more or less ) dry until fairly recently? Salt Lake City , and Utah , write their own law. Every state does. Just because nobody has said in state law yet, " No resident of State A may obtain an abortion as defined by Code ABCD1234 by crossing the state lines into any other state then return to their state of residence" doesn’t mean it cannot happen. Does it? Your cite of **HR 748** supports my fear, it doesn’t disprove it. And I agree with you- inter AND intrastate abortion will be banned. Which comes first will depend upon how fast state legislatures act. However, anyone who thinks that all Conservative-run states do not already have the exact wording and proceedural paperwork outlining said laws in place, printed, proofread and vetted and ready to submit for committee work is deep in the River DeNial. Cause, everybody is ready for this. Just as Bush has had his short list for years, not days. The very OP of this thread is about predicting future events based on what is happening- and heck, the day the OP was posted up, there wasn’t much real action on the Rhenquist resignation. Now, it’s all the buzz that Bush will have two prime spots to fill. I will admit that while I am usually horrified by how Scalia votes, I am quite impressed by his deep dedication to the word. The Word of the Constitution. Interesting that he sees himself as a textualist first and an originalist second. He did not present himself as such in the New Yorker article I read, and as I said above, it was filled with interviews with him. Interesting. I have a lot of respect for his intellecutal acument, I gotta say that. I just think he’s one dangerous fellah to people who enjoy the liberties granted in the last 50 years… ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/265 "2005-07-10T21:18:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > What conservatives want is a textual literalist judge. Sheah, right. Read the majority opinion in _Bush v. Gore_ and try to claim that’s a “textual literalist” ruling with a straight face. :dubious: “Judicial activisim” is just a right-wing codeword for “a decision I disagree with.” The conservatives are perfectly happy to mangle laws if the ends suits their needs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/266 "2005-07-10T22:12:15Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Sheah, right. Read the majority opinion in _Bush v. Gore_ and try to claim that’s a “textual literalist” ruling with a straight face. :dubious: > > “Judicial activisim” is just a right-wing codeword for “a decision I disagree with.” The conservatives are perfectly happy to mangle laws if the ends suits their needs. How many times have I posted here to refute that canard? “Judicial activisim” may well be used by certain uninformed commentators in the way that you suggest. But used by principled observers, it’s NOT “a decision \* disagree with.” You have been given examples of decisions I disagree with but do not characterize as judicial activism, and decisions I agree with but DO characterize as judicial activism. I have no idea what a “textual literalist” is. A _textualist_ is not a literalist. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/267 "2005-07-10T22:15:31Z")
In any event, I don’t see what the problem is. For years, you’ve been happy with the prospect of substantive decisions of law being taken away from the legislature and made by the judiciary. I have complained this was a bad idea; I have been consistently told that it was a great idea and a great system. It baffles me now to hear complaints. Surely, if the prospect of the judiciary having such great power and sway is so great, we shouldn’t be hearing any caterwauling now, should we? Or did you support that system only as long as it delivered the results you wanted? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/268 "2005-07-10T22:17:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For years, you’ve been happy with the prospect of substantive decisions of law being taken away from the legislature and made by the judiciary. I have complained this was a bad idea; I have been consistently told that it was a great idea and a great system. I don’t understand. How does the above quote relate to the current issue? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/269 "2005-07-10T22:23:05Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > **SDMB** rules explicitly prohibit wholesale insertion of copyrighted material. So, I am not in a position to copy and paste the entire in-depth article including copious face to face interview time with Justice Scalia that appeared in The New Yorker. Please feel free to search for it, however. 🙂 My assertions are based upon his self-professed points of view regarding his position on the bench. Nothing more. Ah, yes. Your post is your cite. We’ve seen that before. “Please feel free to search for it” doesn’t cut it around here, pal. If you pull a load of crap out of your ass, people are going to call B.S. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/270 "2005-07-10T22:36:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How many times have I posted here to refute that canard? > > “Judicial activisim” may well be used by certain uninformed commentators in the way that you suggest. But used by principled observers, it’s NOT “a decision \* disagree with.” You have been given examples of decisions I disagree with but do not characterize as judicial activism, and decisions I agree with but DO characterize as judicial activism. > > I have no idea what a “textual literalist” is. A _textualist_ is not a literalist. I concur in part and dissent in part with my learned colleague’s opinion quoted here. 😉 “Judicial activism” is an antonym to “judicial self-restraint,” and does not necessarily reference any of the schools of constitutional jurisprudential philosophy, though it does tend to describe “living constitutionalists” more than “original intent” or “textualist” adherents. However, as used by _some_ conservative pundits/commentators/blogsters, it means exactly what **rjung** said. The attitude is not whether the person adheres to a given school of constitutional interpretation, but rather whether his/her opinions are ones with which the pundit/commentator/blogster agrees. Distinguishing between constitutional liberalism/conservativism and political liberalism/conservatism is something that most political writers simply fail to wrap their minds around. (There are clear exceptions, such as George Will.) For example, Hugo Black was a total literalist with a very strict style of interpretation. Yet he is considered a strong political liberal, since his leading opinions were founded on a literal reading of the First Amendment. While I agree that intelligent observers will use the term accurately, in point of fact I would suspect that typically, 95% of uses of “judicial activism/-ists” in a random sample (say running a Google search for the term) will bring up the “it’s dem lib’ruls tryin’ to distroy America” view, not the principled observer usage which Rick defends. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/271 "2005-07-10T23:07:04Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I concur in part and dissent in part with my learned colleague’s opinion quoted here. 😉 “Judicial activism” is an antonym to “judicial self-restraint,” and does not necessarily reference any of the schools of constitutional jurisprudential philosophy, though it does tend to describe “living constitutionalists” more than “original intent” or “textualist” adherents. And here is the heart of the problem. Even intelligent, well read people like **Bricker** and Scalia and Bork, et al. use the term “judicial activism” to describe a judicial philosphy with which they disagree and little more. It’s a loaded term that is used to describe anyone who does not agree with an originalist point of view. Just look at the rhetoric that Rick constantly (and quite annoyingly) uses when describing a decision that is not originalist. It’s always a barrage of meaningless crap like: > [@Bricker](#): > > For years, you’ve been happy with the prospect of substantive decisions of law being taken away from the legislature and made by the judiciary. I have complained this was a bad idea; I have been consistently told that it was a great idea and a great system. > > It baffles me now to hear complaints. Surely, if the prospect of the judiciary having such great power and sway is so great, we shouldn’t be hearing any caterwauling now, should we? > > Or did you support that system only as long as it delivered the results you wanted? Bricker, like many others, think that their judicial philosphy is correct and all others are somehow “activist”. Pile on the rhetoric of disrespecting the will of the majority or “See how it can work against you too” and their comments are, just like the term “judicial activism”, a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/272 "2005-07-10T23:53:56Z")
My post is _his_ cite. [http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050328on\_onlineonly01](http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050328on_onlineonly01) This is an article about the article. I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/273 "2005-07-11T00:45:58Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > My post is _his_ cite. > [http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050328on\_onlineonly01](http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050328on_onlineonly01) > This is an article about the article. I dunno. Just saying “here is an article” proves nothing. How about quoting something from that article that supports the premise that Scalia and like minded jurists would: > [@Cartoonivers](#): > > …enable the entire Fundamentalist / Evangelical White House agenda to be fulfilled… Whatever that even means in the first place, I don’t have the vaguest idea. Or that: > [@Cartoonivers](#): > > Judges like Scalia who are dedicated to pure and linear interpretation of the Constitution word for word as written, opposed to interpretation and expansion of the concepts and ideals of our Constitution might well be glad to shut down outlets of free speech that are deemed to be seditious The article you linked to simply does not support either of those assertions. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/274 "2005-07-11T01:10:48Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > **Gfactor** , sure it follows. It doesn’t have precedent yet because the Justices have not been named, and state law has not been empowered by the overturning of Roe V. Wade. > > Just because a state has not barred a citizen of that state from crossing their lines into a neighboring state to obtain services that they have deemed illegal doesn’t mean it cannot happen. > > 230 years ago, would anyone have guessed that an entire city in the United States would be ( more or less ) dry until fairly recently? Salt Lake City , and Utah , write their own law. Every state does. Just because nobody has said in state law yet, " No resident of State A may obtain an abortion as defined by Code ABCD1234 by crossing the state lines into any other state then return to their state of residence" doesn’t mean it cannot happen. Does it? I suspect that such a statute would collide with the state A’s citizen’s right to travel: > [@](#): > > [T]he right of a United States citizen to travel from one State to another and to take up residence in the State of his choice is protected by the Federal Constitution. Although the textual source of this right has been the subject of debate, its fundamental nature has consistently been recognized by this Court. The right to travel has been described as a privilege of national citizenship, and as an aspect of liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Whatever its source, a State may neither tax nor penalize a citizen for exercising his right to leave one State and enter another. (Internal footnotes, pagination, and citations omitted.) > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/452/412.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since It would probably also be an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=314&invol=160](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=314&invol=160) Finally, to the extent that the law was seen as an attempt by one state to dictate the criminal law of another state, it could be seen as a violation of the full faith and credit clause. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/08.html#1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/08.html#1) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/275 "2005-07-11T01:41:17Z")
Let’s note that the Interstate Commerce Clause has one significant exception to it: the right of individual states to regulate the sale and importation of alcoholic beverages, as provided by the 21st Amendment. That Salt Lake City chose to remain dry, and Utah to let them, is covered by that specialized issue. There is no amendment enabling a state to prohibit people from crossing the border into another state to do something which the first state deems illegal but the second state does not. Of course, since _Wicklow_ one can find precedent to make almost anything fall under the Commerce Clause, from medical marijuana grown by terminal cancer patients to local zoning regulations. (This is a point where I take my leave of “living constitutionalism” and look for something remotely resembling the meaning of the text.) **Hamlet** , I do think there is a valid use to the term that is not pejorative. However, it occurs to me that the usage is often associated with a hyperliteralism that presumes that the Founding Fathers and the Reconstruction Congress had no clue what they meant when they wrote broad protections into the law, and that one is supposed to construe them according to the hyperliteralist’s political philosophy. Clearly, homosexual people are not entitled to equal protection, and due process means that government can do anything it wishes so long as it follows someone’s idea of proper procedure when it does so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/276 "2005-07-11T01:43:06Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > (This is a point where I take my leave of “living constitutionalism” and look for something remotely resembling the meaning of the text.) And you choose this particular point because … ? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/277 "2005-07-11T01:49:31Z")
Becuase its wholly inconsistant with the remainder of the constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/278 "2005-07-11T01:53:17Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > 230 years ago, would anyone have guessed that an entire city in the United States would be ( more or less ) dry until fairly recently? Salt Lake City , and Utah , write their own law. This is the exact same comparison as your failed fireworks scenario. It is illegal to import or use fireworks in places that forbid them. It is illegal to import or use liquor in places that forbid it. It is not illegal to go somewhere where it is legal, blow stuff up or imbibe as the case may be, then return home. Your slippery slope is really a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/279 "2005-07-11T02:13:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The article you linked to simply does not support either of those assertions. You’re right. I seem to have found the precise article he cites, though. [http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2291](http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2291) I don’t see anything in _it_, either. Except for Scalia’s attitude. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/280 "2005-07-11T02:25:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The article you linked to simply does not support either of those assertions. That’s because the article link you are referring to here is not the article I mentioned in my post, but you’re way too busy sniping at me to realize that, even though it was clearly identified as such. Pity, that. However, I do thank **E\_Sabbath** for finding the complete text of the article online anyway. I didn’t see that, I only looked for it within the New Yorker site. Good find. A careful read shows that Scalia did indeed give that interview, and the article does indeed exist. Sorry it sounded as though I was pulling, what was it? Crap out of my ass? By obeying a rule of SDMB, which is that one does not insert copyrighted materials into a post. I’m glad a safe link was found- my only option was to start typing in and copying text into a post. Your coarsely worded description of my defensive powers aside, copying the article into a post here was not an option. Scalia sounds pretty proud of his textualist position in the interview. That was the foundation of my remarks. A very careful read through the entire article may yield the same impression. It may not of course, but to me he sure came off as a textualist first before anything else. Fine. Cited. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712.md?page=15)