I agree that if she is flyweight, she should be jettisoned. But I'd be happy with a light heavy originalist as a counterweight to Ivy League elitism.
I agree completely. I have posted that ad nauseum. Don't you read my posts? :) Right now all we have is speculation, and wild ass predictions, which is a fun game, but not a basis for a decision when more data points will come in later.
Well actually I don't agree with that much, because I think the term "originalism" has become a buzz phrase that many folks suffuse with a content that is not there in practice. The Constitution is not that precise. The words are not that precise. The intent is often not that precise. The intent as to whether the words should have a fixed meaning, or a meaning given to them with each generation, is often not really known.
What does "cruel and unusual" mean? What was the intent as to what it should mean? What was cruel and unusual then, or what is deemed cruel and unusual by each generation's sensibilities? While originalism is a tool, it is but one tool. For example, I am now presuaded that nobody has a clue exactly and precisely what the intent of the founders was as to the second amendment. They may not have known either, or thought about it much.
Scalia is indeed an effective salesman. That does not mean he is totally right, or totally candid about the limits of the doctrine. I would love to debate the man, after taking about 6 months off to get ready for him. :)