Your post, on the other hand, could be paraphrased as, "This link says the liberals on the court are just as bad."
My message 9 did that, and by asking you a legitimate question about other judges, the discussion could have gone into more detail in comparing human characteristics of judges. But you didn't answer that question, you responded only by requesting something more than bare links, as if more than a bare link was required before you could answer my question.
So in message 12, I complied with your request, easily proving that liberals on the court are
far worse than anything you've provided about Scalia, concerning opinionated rulings. But you've provided very little about Scalia's actions that you disapprove of thus far, and you've specifically addressed nothing from my message 12. During work today I was anticipating analyzing some of Anthony Kennedy's methods of choosing his interpretive scheme to fit his desired ends this evening, but I see it's way too soon for that.
I can only guess that Marc was trying to argue that Ginsberg was contradictory in arguing both for and against referencing laws or decisions of other nations in Supreme Court decisions, but the speech excerpts Mark chose don't support that interpretation,
That's because your guess was wrong. I was giving a general overview of how the opinions of activist, liberal judges are much more involved in their decision making than are the opinions of the more originalist judges like Antonin Scalia.
The terms "originalist" and "activist" judges are fairly widely recognized - Wikipedia, not exactly a conservative source, describes them;
Originalism - Wikipedia
and
Judicial activism - Wikipedia
As you can see, the judges personal opinion is much more involved in liberal judges decisions than in conservative (originalist) judges opinions, like Scalia's.
I just genuinely don't understand how those on the left condemn conservative judges for having an opinion of ANY kind, however mild and minuscule compared to their overall decisions, and give a free pass to liberal judges for having opinions that are a huge part in their decisions. I can only guess that it's simply because they like liberal decisions, and don't like conservative ones. But, in condemning conservatives, they act like the
opinion itself is the problem. It's a double standard. It works on a quick, surface drive by like a NY Times editorial, and in a love fest among liberals, but as we can see from your inability to answer almost ANY of my questions, it crashes and burns when subjected to a detailed discussion.
I don't know that there's any effective way to have a discussion with a free-association style.
In other words, crash and burn. If you decide to elaborate more on "Scalia's scurrilous behavior", or answer anymore of my legitimate questions, then we can continue. Otherwise I'm finished in this thread, and I'll check out for awhile. But this place is like the Hotel California, I can check out, but I can never leave.