Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
Posts: 35,011
Political Matrix E: 4.65, S: -2.78
|
|
« on: March 10, 2014, 01:53:03 AM » |
|
Scalia. I tend to agree with his positions the most, especially on civil liberties cases, and while I disagree with his tendency to use personal opinions and policy arguments on some social cases, those generally rank lower in terms of importance to me.
I think Scalia was the Scalia/Stevens dissent was the only defensible position in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Scalia's dissent wasn't driven by emotional fear of terrorism, which is what I think drove the plurality's and especially Thomas's dissent, which was one of the most dangerous opinions I've ever read.
Scalia's dissent in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), had a good start on the standing issue, but I think Scalia could've been stronger in his logic. On the merits, I think his rationale was flawed, but for me, the standing issue was more important there. I was wholly unimpressed with Alito's dissent overall.
I was similarly unimpressed with Alito's dissent in Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011), and I thought he took an absolutely terrible standpoint from a civil liberties aspect.
|