[supercat]

Bless him for being the conservative jurist that he is, but Scalia's argument smacks of expediency.

Scalia, I think, believes that to maintain the legitimacy of the Court, one must regard previous Supreme Court decisions as correct, and interpret the Constitution in such a way as to avoid contradiction. While he is more than willing to stretch to find some reason why an earlier decision isn't applicable to a case before him, he is unwilling to recognize that the Court has, on occasions, rendered decisions that were just plain illegitimate.

[Ken H]

So Scalia will uphold Roe v Wade?

[okie01]

Good assessment.

Which would be more likely to override the Dred Scott precedent?

Scalia? Or Thomas?

And race would have nothing to do with it...

[Still Thinking]

Scalia, I think, believes that to maintain the legitimacy of the Court, one must regard previous Supreme Court decisions as correct, and interpret the Constitution in such a way as to avoid contradiction.

Which would allow liberal decisions always to win the day because intellectually dishonest agenda-driven liberals put no such constraints upon themselves. Or to look at it another way, if Scalia really feels that way, he should have no trouble reversing decision that themselves lacked deference to precedent.