The Libertarian Snakebite Kit - Day

2:27PM - Scalia - Strict Constructionist? Bullshit!!

In the article What Was Scalia Thinking?, Mark Moller starts out by saying

The verdict in Gonzales v. Raich last week was a stunning victory for federal power, and it came with an unusual endorsement. The Court upheld Drug Enforcement Agency prosecution of sick women who use medical marijuana to treat symptoms of their illnesses. Siding with the DEA, six justices held that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which gives the federal government the power to "regulate Commerce...among the several States") allows Washington, D.C. to regulate purely local conduct when that activity is targeted as part of a "comprehensive" scheme of regulations. The Court held that it's irrelevant if the regulated activity is confined to just one state.

Later Moller states

First, background. Scalia came to the bench predisposed to look out for the interests of "comprehensive" federal regulatory programs, like the DEA's. He served as the head of the Department of Justice's prestigious Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which advises agencies about the scope of their powers. His time there plainly had an impact on him: Today, he is known to hire clerks who have spent time working at OLC. Scalia's approach to administrative agencies—his belief in giving them a lot of leeway (in legalese, "deference") when they apply law to fact—is consistent with the institutional outlook of a former executive branch lawyer.

He then cautions the reader to not consider the scumbag a executive branch stooge, and then begins to state his reasons for claiming this.

Scalia's basic philosophy of judging is one of judicial restraint achieved by deciding cases, where possible, according to clear "rules" rather than vague standards. "When," he says, "I adopt a general rule, and say, 'This is the basis for our decision,' I not only constrain lower courts, I constrain myself as well. If the next case should have such different facts that my...preferences regarding the outcome are quite the opposite, I will be unable to indulge those preferences; I have committed myself to the governing principle."

Thus, he writes, good judges should read the Constitution in a way that constrains future courts to a mechanical menu of decisions.

This means to me that Scalia's incapable of admitting a mistake, and in this case, once he makes a extraordinarily unconstitutional decision, he's incapable of correcting himself. Scalia's almost as full of himself as Bork was/is, and both seem to be sociopaths, and as such, are not fit to be on the bench, any place where these deranged individuals might make judgments.