Scalia is an activist social conservative.
While generally aligned with a true conservative, they are not the same thing.
Just for example, Scalia is the type that would probably OK states banning the sale of condoms to married people because, in his view, such morality can and should be legislated.
I think he would "OK" it because it is not even discussed in the Constitution. Therefore, it would fall to the state legislature and judiciary to decide. The Supreme Court's Griswold v. Conn. decision was a classic example of judicial activism, and laid the groundwork for so many others, like Roe v. Wade.
That's an entirely different thing from saying it's OK because it's a good idea.
In some ways, Justice Scalia may be an activist, but yours was a bad example.
And it is.
"Scalia is an activist social conservative. While generally aligned with a true conservative, they are not the same thing. "
Exactly right, which is why so many here love him. He's an occasionally useful ally in the fight for a Constitutional republic. Just as those who are social conservative authoritarians are allies. But his cause is not our own.
Unlike Balko, however, I think there is a positive to this case. This is a great opportunity to end the exclusionary rule, which intrudes upon the people's interests, and expand the trial lawyers' interest in suing police and police departments. THAT is what this does, in saying that the exclusionary rule is not the best solution to privacy violations by cops. Those whose searches and arrests are in fact improper now have SCOTUS sanction to sue the police officers' pants off.
No. He may vote to OK the ban, because he believes that it is a state issue, not a federal issue.