Scalia is very activist with regard to the 4th Amendment. Some of his justifications on 4th Amendment rulings have been ridiculous, bordering on the absurd. ********************
Scalia, in fact, is an originalist and not an activist. Thomas is also considered an originalist. If you have something you can cite that refutes this, I'd like to see it.
Scalia, in fact, is an originalist and not an activist. Thomas is also considered an originalist. If you have something you can cite that refutes this, I'd like to see it.
Please expand on that comment. It's more than a little vague.
Sometimes he cites originalism in his rulings, other times he does not. And sometimes his "originalism" can be pretty suspect.
In
Gonzales v Raich he cites New Deal Commerce Clause logic, driving another stake in the 10th Amendment.
Hudson v Michigan he basically states that if you have just a regular search warrant but do a no-knock search instead that the exclusionary rule does not apply. His originalism in this one is that the founding fathers thought the best remedy to violations of the 4th Amendment was for the affected parties to sue and that cops are more professional than they used to be so we should go ahead and get rid of the exclusionary rule anyway. Luckily Rhenquist restated that would not happen.
Justice Scalia is a smart man and a good judge, but they all are affected by their lives, their politics, and work histories so that they are all activists, although they claim to be this or that.
Originalism itself involves one's interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers, and that can vary widely.While I like many of his rulings that preserve American sovereignty and many other areas, but I do not trust him with the 4th Amendment(once you are off your property).