Can someone give a list of deplorable Scalia decisions?

[maveric]

I'm having it out on FB and all I can remember is bush v gore.

[Coventina]

1. Bush v. Gore.

There are loads more, but that one alone buys his ticket to hell.

[Ex Lurker]

3. He was consistently against Obamacare

for torture, and for restrictions on free speech when it suited him.

[potone]

2. How about a list of the ones that weren't deplorable?

I can't think of any.

[LiberalArkie]

4. Just type in "scalia decisions" into your favorite search engine.

[avebury]

5. Not a decsion but a descipable comment

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/

Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.


Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die.

One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

[Laxman]

6. More Than Any Individual Decision....

was his intellectually dishonesty. He would swing from one point of view to another to suit the outcome he desired-all the while touting his "originalist" interpretations. Or his decrying of "activist" judges while engaging in judicial activism. He had his own interpretation of just what the strict reading of the constitution means. He railed against activism while championing overturning legislation that he disagreed with. It would take a longer essay to detail the inconsistencies in his decisions. (even worse than his decisions were his numerous speeches where he made some really bizarre proclamations-like the government could actually favor a particular religion it it wanted). Don't forget the Obamacare decision where he actually misinterpreted his own opinion from a prior case to get to the result he wanted. He was not actually an intellectual giant, except in his own mind and in the minds of his sycophantic followers who don't really know the law-but love the jingoistic phrases like strict constitutionalism.