# Why is there so much hatred toward Justice Scalia? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329 "2004-02-15T08:12:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/61 "2004-02-16T04:38:31Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I would have to look up what Lochner vs. New York is. It was a case from the early 1900s where the Supreme Court ruled that a New York State law that set maximum hours of employment for bakers was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the constitution guarantees the fundimental right to enter into employment contracts. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/62 "2004-02-16T05:47:16Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > So, you think it would be a good system if, purely on the say-so of a single unelected person, the society could be so radically altered that you would leave it and curse it? Only so far as those alterations produce more human liberty and freedom, which should be the end goal of every Court proceeding: maximizing liberty and expanding freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/63 "2004-02-16T06:09:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Only so far as those alterations produce more human liberty and freedom, which should be the end goal of every Court proceeding: maximizing liberty and expanding freedom. And who decides what constitutes liberty and freedom? A judge? Unilaterally? The point is not what ideally happens: the point is: should judges have such incredible power to simply make up the law when there is no guarantee that they will use it in a way YOU might like, as opposed to something someone ELSE might like? You’re just dodging the meat of the question again and again. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/64 "2004-02-16T22:17:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Actually that is an example of the “Fallacy of Composition”. Because every ruling by Scalia is not purely one of strict constuctionism, he cannot be called a constructionist. If you are going to accuse Scalia of “impurity”, then the least you can do is give us a good statistical example of SCotUS rulings and show that Scalia is “less pure in ideology” than the other justices. That’s not the issue raised in the OP. It’s why do people hate Scalia. The other justices are a cow’s opinion – moot. People, or at least, I, don’t hate Scalia in relation to Rehnquist or Souter or O’Conner. I’ve been seriously peeved with every one of them at one decision or another, but Scalia is the only one of them that I think is an evil scum. Rhenquist, the one I dislike most seriously after Scalia, I see as a slimy hack. My opinion of Rhenquist is more contempt and disgust than hatred. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/65 "2004-02-16T22:23:34Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#): > > actually i haven’t seen **Dewey** defend scalia as such. he certainly defended the doctrine which scalia appears to support, and which i, to an extent, also support (this is a bit of a change for me). Dewey doesn’t defend Scalia AS SUCH, but he DOES defend Scalia, boy does he ever. He had a long go-round with, IIRC minty green over Scalia’s refusal to see privacy rights in the 9th amendment (or anywhere else) awhile back. > [@](#): > > i haven’t read enough of his opinions (specifically, i haven’t yet read _Lawrence_) to form a judgement one way or the other. i do note that his opinions tend to promote a society which i would not voluntarily be a part of, but if they remain true to his constitutional views, i can’t fault him for. So you bought the judicial fig leaf they put over the 2000 selection decision, did you? the point: i think anyone who attacks strict constructionism as a basis for attacking scalia lacks a basis for an attack at all. the first instances (and majority of instances) in which “substantive due process” was used by the supreme court’s opinion supported fewer civil rights for individuals and promoted a conservative doctrine. it is a knife that cuts both ways, and it, based on the people who’ve thus far used it, cuts into civil liberties more than away from them. so if you have a problem with scalia’s character as a person, be my guest and denounce him. if you have a problem with the doctrine he espouses, leave the man himself alone. [/QUOTE] I think Scalia uses strict constructionism as a tool for actively promoting his social beliefs, a screen if you will. You’re just saying, “Pay no attention to the man behind the mirror!” Sorry, I believe I WILL pay attention to the little twerp. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/66 "2004-02-16T22:52:47Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I agree that _Bush v. Gore_ is a highly arguable decision; indeed, there is much to criticize about it. However, unlike a right to privacy, there are actual textual grounds for the court’s decision – namely the equal protection clause for the majority, and for the concurring opinion which Scalia also joined, Article II and certain provisions of federal election law. Say what you will about the opinion, it doesn’t involve the wholesale insertion of new provisions into the Constitution. Are you saying that there aren’t actual textual grounds for the right of privacy? Surely, Griswold and the other decisions didn’t just make this up out of thin air…They referred to something in the Constitution or its amendments. I think what you are really saying is that you find the textual grounds to be stronger for Bush vs. Gore than you do for the privacy stuff. Of course, that is probably a matter of personal opinion and I would guess (somewhat wildly) that one could find others, equally knowledgeable in the law, who would argue the opposite. And, by the way, what is the purported rational justification for the SC saying that the Bush vs. Gore case should not be a precedent for deciding future cases? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/67 "2004-02-16T23:00:11Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Okay, but what you are then positing is that perhaps Scalia is really a closet moderate to liberal in his true political beliefs and it is only with a heavy heart that he feels the courts must not weigh in on sodomy laws and abortion and the like. Forgive me if I find this scenario unlikely. No, I’m positing that Scalia doesn’t make his private political beliefs known, and that they are irrelevant to the arguments he makes regarding constitutional interpretation. > [@jshore](#): > > I would have to look up what Lochner vs. New York is. [Merry Christmas](http://laws.findlaw.com/us/198/45.html). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/68 "2004-02-16T23:17:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You are right, to an extent. The thread is victim to a rhetorical trick called “framing” that Dewey uses fairly consistently when Scalia is brought forth. He maintains that Scalia is misunderstood, that he is a strict constructionist and that the decisions for which I and others excoriate him are not the product of a hateful, twisted mind but strong commitment to a sound Constitutional doctrine. > > This shifts the grounds of the argument to “living constitution” vs. “strict constructionism,” but it doesn’t have to be this way. We are not lawyers, this is not a court of law – this is a discussion board – and we are under no compulsion to evaluate Scalia on strictly legal grounds, however much Dewey and others might wish us to. And I am under no compulsion to refrain from calling this approach stupid and offensive. You cite as evidence of Scalia’s evilness his judicial opinions. A logical, intellectually honest approach to evaluating the use of those opinions for that purpose would be to ask if those opinions are justifiable based on a coherent theory of constitutional jurisprudence. I contend that it is. Your way is esssentially the way of the mob – it doesn’t matter if there is an intellectually sound case for Scalia’s opinions, it only matters that you don’t like them and consider that alone sufficient grounds to pillory the man. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > We might, in fact, ask the following question – does Scalia’s attraction to strict Constructionism follow from a noble following of sound doctrine, or is it merely a convenient club which he can use to bash the hopes and dreams of Americans whose beliefs he finds offensive? > > In short, is Scalia the noble soul Dewey and other apologists paint him as, nobly following the dictates of strict constructionism for the greater good or is he the villainous orge I think he is, secretly delighting in the effects his decisions have on those he dislikes? One wonders exactly how you would demonstrate this. Do you have a mind-reading machine? Or do you just consider anyone who disagrees with you to be evil? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think the 2000 decision is an obvious piece of political pandering – a case where Scalia clearly used the law to further political ends. I look forward to your critique of the arguments Scalia put forth in his concurring opinion in _Bush v. Gore_. Or will you just hand-wave them away? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think his refusal to recuse himself in the Cheney case further illuminates his lack of character. Nevermind that he is foursquare within the rules established by the court. Nevermind that he _has_ recused himself in other cases, e.g., the Pledge case. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think his decision on the flag burning case is just the sort of thing a sly partisan would do. He gets cred for following his conscience against conservative doctrine, while preserving for partisans on the left and right – mostly the left – a rhetorical tool that does nothing but enrage veterans and turn the mainstream against them. Speaking as a libeal, flag burning is the stupidest rhetorical argument I know of. Gee thanks Justice Scalia. You damned scumbag. [Dr. Evil] Riiiiiiiiiight. [/Dr. Evil] Yeah, Scalia’s opinion in _Texas v. Johnson_ was just part of some masterful subterfuge to disguise his real agenda. It couldn’t possibly simply be a case where Scalia’s view of constitutional jurisprudence demanded that result. :rolleyes: Adjust the tin-foil hat, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/69 "2004-02-16T23:20:12Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Dewey doesn’t defend Scalia AS SUCH, but he DOES defend Scalia, boy does he ever. He had a long go-round with, IIRC minty green over Scalia’s refusal to see privacy rights in the 9th amendment (or anywhere else) awhile back. Yet again, you fail to see a distinction between defending Scalia and defending a particular theory of constitutional jurisprudence. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/70 "2004-02-16T23:29:02Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Are you saying that there aren’t actual textual grounds for the right of privacy? Surely, Griswold and the other decisions didn’t just make this up out of thin air…They referred to something in the Constitution or its amendments. That is exactly what I am saying. _Griswold_ was built on “emanations and penumbras” of other amendments, not on extant constitutional text. The general right to privacy is literally made up out of thin air. You can find an emanation and penumbra in just about anything. > [@jshore](#): > > I think what you are really saying is that you find the textual grounds to be stronger for Bush vs. Gore than you do for the privacy stuff. Of course, that is probably a matter of personal opinion and I would guess (somewhat wildly) that one could find others, equally knowledgeable in the law, who would argue the opposite. You could find others who would dispute that _Bush v. Gore_ is a proper interpretation of the constitution’s text. I do not think you could find any serious critic of _Bush v. Gore_ who would suggest the result has no basis in the text, i.e., that the words supporting the majority opinion simply aren’t there. I mean, Good Lord, in the case of the majority the words are right there: “equal protection.” > [@jshore](#): > > And, by the way, what is the purported rational justification for the SC saying that the Bush vs. Gore case should not be a precedent for deciding future cases? That’s wishful thinking on the part of the court. You’re darn tootin’ it’s going to be used as precedent. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/71 "2004-02-16T23:50:05Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > No, I’m positing that Scalia doesn’t make his private political beliefs known, and that they are irrelevant to the arguments he makes regarding constitutional interpretation. Well, I severely question that Scalia’s private political beliefs are so closely held…And, while they may be irrelevant to what he **claims** motivates his juriprudence that doesn’t mean they **are** irrelevant to what motivates his juriprudence. (By the way, do you believe that Brennan and Marshall didn’t make their political beliefs known either? How about Thomas? Rehnquist?) > [@](#): > > That’s wishful thinking on the part of the court. You’re darn tootin’ it’s going to be used as precedent. And, I hope that you will hereby blast the WSJ editorial page for complaining about this. But, irregardless, my question really was how one can justify them **wanting** it not be used as a precedent. I.e., can one make a rational argument why the decision is a good decision but shouldn’t be used as precedent to help decide other cases? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/72 "2004-02-16T23:58:35Z")
Oh, and [here](http://pewforum.org/press/index.php?ReleaseID=11) is an example of Scalia not making his private beliefs known: > [@](#): > > “You want to have a fair death penalty?” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia asked an audience of nearly 500 academics and others at a January 25 conference on religion and the death penalty. “You kill; you die. That’s fair.” Admittedly, he claimed in that forum that it his legal views and not his personal views that guide his juriprudence but who wouldn’t claim this? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/73 "2004-02-17T00:30:16Z")
To be fair to Scalia, if you read the full transcript, his argument is essentially this: “I have concluded that the death penalty is not immoral. And, this is a good thing because if I had concluded it was immoral I would have to resign as a judge because I could not endorse finding it unconstitutional based on my reading of the Constitution but I could also not rule in favor of something I found immoral.” He refuses to say whether or not he is a proponent or opponent of actually having death penalty laws, although I personally have a strong opinion of where he does stand on this from reading all that he says in that forum. Personally, I think that Scalia genuinely believes that he is just applying his “strict constructionist” judicial philosophy with utmost fairness and dispassion. However, I also think people are much better at believing that their personal or political beliefs don’t influence their judgement than they are at actually not letting these beliefs influence their judgement. Scalia reminds me of people I know who are, as a colleague at work so aptly puts it, “almost as smart as they think they are”…I.e., he is a brilliant legal mind who unfortunately overestimates his own brilliance and dispassionateness a bit. Sort of like another former colleague at work who was was a rational objectivist, believing he could prove the correct (more or less “libertarian”) points of view to be objectively correct from first principles. ---
**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:** [February 17, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/74 "2004-02-17T00:54:21Z")
**jshore** : I read the whole artilce, too, and don’t take it as a declaration of a political philosophy. It’s just as easy to take it as a way of responding to the oft asked question about the death penalty being applied “unfairly” in that some get it and some don’t, and that it should therefor be gotten rid of. He’s just pointing out that there are two ways to skin the fairness cat. And he pointed out what he uses to actually make his decsion as a SC judge on the subject: > [@](#): > > “The legal issue for me as a judge is whether the death penalty, as it is administered, violates the Eighth Amendment,” he said. “Does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The answer is no.” IOW, the constitution does not require him to strike down a type of punishment bcause it it is not fairly applied, only if it not is cruel and unusual. The whole problem with the “he’s not philosophically pure” argument is that the opposite philosophy defies a test of purity. If the constitution means whatever I think it means, then no matter what judgement I make, I’m being philosophically pure. Scalia is consistently held up as **the** premier example of constructionist thinking in the US judicial world. But even among constructionist, there are going to be arguments about how to apply specific textual tracts under specific circumstances. Like **DCU** , I favor that method myself and often find myself agreeing with A.S. much more often than not. Scalia can be caustic and arogant at times, but it’s unfair to criticize his judicial rulings because of those personality traits. (And I’m not saying you have done this, but other posters on this thread have.) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/75 "2004-02-17T01:52:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **jshore** : > The whole problem with the “he’s not philosophically pure” argument is that the opposite philosophy defies a test of purity. If the constitution means whatever I think it means, then no matter what judgement I make, I’m being philosophically pure. Yes, if someone is making very explicit claims to philosophical pureness then they must be held to a higher standard in this regard. Take my arguments with the rational objectivist as an analogy, I never claimed to him that I could prove from first principles why my liberal philosophies are correct…that I could prove that the only fair taxation is progressive, for example. I will strongly argue that this is what I believe to be true but I won’t try to say that one can prove it mathematically; I’ll admit it depends on one’s values. (This guy was a mathematician, by the way. And really did essentially believe he could prove this stuff just like you proved a math theorem.) So, to summarize, I much more trust a judge who says that judging Constitutionality is a difficult issues and it is impossible to do it purely on the text and divorced from all context, regarding society, current values, etc. than I trust one who claims there is an objective way to interpret the Constitution and what everyone else is doing is less objective. And I will be particularly hard on this person if he ever seems to read into the Constitution things that don’t seem to be there when it suits his convenience…such as Bush vs. Gore. To summarize the summary, people who claim they can be perfectly objective scare me a lot more than those who have a more complicated and nuisanced view of how you go about interpretting the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/76 "2004-02-17T02:01:21Z")
> [@](#): > > “You want to have a fair death penalty?” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia asked an audience of nearly 500 academics and others at a January 25 conference on religion and the death penalty. “You kill; you die. That’s fair.” Geez, that is a pretty stupid statement, especially from a judge who should know better. Sounds more like a Bill O’Reilly talk than one of his opinions. And it seems that his opinion on the eigth is colored by his religious views: the state killing someone isn’t really a big deal to him, because killing isn’t a big deal unless it’s a situation in which it imperiels one’s soul. And how the eigth the only amendment relevant? Even someone who thinks it’s applied fairly and equally has to concede that it would be unconstitutional to apply it without any regard to equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![Elysian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@Elysian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elysian)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/77 "2004-02-17T02:42:24Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > His principled jurisprudence goes out the window whenever the issue _sub judice_ tickles his moral precepts, which are very right-wing conservative, bigoted, and prejudicial. His histrionic opinion in _Lawrence v. Texas_ was a sterling example of this sort of behavior, and exhibits the true hypocrisy of his Justiceship. There was no basis in “strict constructionalism” for the raving bigotry set forth in that opinion; that rant came from his black little heart and nowhere else. I was curious, so I pulled this case up and looked at it. I read through Scalia’s dissenting opinion, and I don’t see anything like raving bigotry. Maybe I’m not very good at reading cases yet, but I saw a few things that he pointed out. 1. Moral legislation should be left to the states 2. If the majority of the state want sodomy to be illegal they will legislate it 3. The Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn this legislature unless there is a “fundamental right” to sodomy 4. Sodomy isn’t a fundamental right 5. Therefore the Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn this Texas legislation Justice O’Connor did mention that sodomy was closely related to certain group and in making it illegal Texas was legislating against this group. I agree, but I also agree with Scalia. I don’t think the Sup. Ct. should overturn moral legislature made by the states. Maybe I’m just not seeing the raving bigotry. I’m a little tired and it’s swimming before my eyes – I’ve read a lot of cases today. It seems like Scalia is just sticking pretty close to his original viewpoint of strict Constitutional interpretation. He even says here: > [@Scalia](#): > > Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic [\*\*\*80] change. I really am curious about this. Where is the raving bigotry? I want to be able to read these cases better. ---
**Author:** ![Elysian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@Elysian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elysian)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/78 "2004-02-17T02:49:44Z")
Heh, originally posted by Scalia! I didn’t know he was on the SDMB! Whew, I AM tired. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/79 "2004-02-17T02:55:36Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > (By the way, do you believe that Brennan and Marshall didn’t make their political beliefs known either? How about Thomas? Rehnquist?) I don’t beleive any of those folks commented on pending or proposed legislation or endorsed particular candidates for office, or commented on the utility of existing legislation outside of decisions interpreting that legislation or determining its constitutionality. So no, basically. > [@jshore](#): > > But, irregardless, Why don’t you just say “regardless” and save yourself a syllable? They’re synonymous, you know. Your usage is [technically permissible but is considered really poor writing](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless&r=67). (Yes, “irregardless” is a pet peeve of mine.) > [@jshore](#): > > my question really was how one can justify them **wanting** it not be used as a precedent. I.e., can one make a rational argument why the decision is a good decision but shouldn’t be used as precedent to help decide other cases? I think the “no future precendential use” part of the opinion was both stupid and near-wilfully naive. I understand why they’d want to do that – the facts of the case were absurdly bizarre, so God only knows how they might be applied in future cases – but think it was futile for them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/80 "2004-02-17T03:08:04Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > To summarize the summary, people who claim they can be perfectly objective scare me a lot more than those who have a more complicated and nuisanced view of how you go about interpretting the Constitution. Strict constructionists don’t claim to have a perfectly objective answer to how the Constitution should be interpreted. Strict constructionism is simply a methodological approach to interpretation. It clearly excludes some interpretations, true, but as **John Mace** points out, there is robust debate among strict constructionists as to how various provisions should properly be interpreted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329.md?page=5)