Scalia indicated that he's aware his opponents see him darkly, as someone who wants to curtail rights. But he said he'd have sided with the anti-segregationists in two landmark Supreme Court rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1878, and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.The writer needs a fact checker. Plessy was decided in 1896.
Scalia is extremely sound on the law as written, but IMO he's a little bit too trusting of the whims of the majority. The Framers placed strict limits on what government could do, and made it tough to loosen those limits, with good reason.
-Eric
>> Scalia is extremely sound on the law as written, but IMO he's a little bit too trusting of the whims of the majority. The Framers placed strict limits on what government could do, and made it tough to loosen those limits, with good reason.
I agree. Scalia is way off-base on that one. A difficult amendment process is the hallmark of our Constitution. The problem is not with the amendment process but with one of the amendments, the 17th, which weakened (virtually destroyed) the balance of power. Prior to the 17th the senators were subjects of their individual state legislatures, and could be recalled if they did not follow the whims of their legislatures. After the 17th, all power was consolidated in Washington, leading to legislative and judicial tyranny, which has led to socialism, which has placed our great civilization in danger.