On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Shemano, David B. wrote: > Since the criticism was self-evidently silly, I addressed the actual point > that the author was trying to make, which is that, notwithstanding Scalia’s > pronouncements regarding methodology, Scalia would always rule in a way > that coincided with his political preferences. >
Since you got the actual point the author was making, the "self-evidently silliness" clearly was in the deliberately obtuse reading rather than in the criticism itself. > I simply pointed out that if that is the charge, the liberals are far more > guilty, certainly compared to Scalia. > Assertion without evidence. > BTW, I encourage you to actually read Scalia’s opinions in Heller and > Citizens United (which by the way was a concurrence, not the main > opinion). In each of those opinions, it is clear that Scalia expressly > thinks he is doing a textual analysis, as opposed to ignoring the text and > going off on his own. You may disagree with the result itself, and you may > even disagree that Scalia’s textual analysis was the correct textual > analysis, but that does not mean Scalia was unfaithful to his own > methodology in those opinions. > <http://www.robinskaplan.com/> No doubt when a textual pretext was available for his reactionary opinions, Scalia would use it. He was also happy to use non-textual pretexts on other occasions, which is why he is a fraud. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
