did Scalia (uninentionally of course) help the left

[brucejoel99]

Toobin & others have offered a similar such point in their writings, yeah: basically, Scalia simply wasn't willing to concede any sort of substantive ground to those justices whose approach to the law was the opposite of the originalist interpretation which he saw himself as chained to, as said approaches just aren't reconcilable. A justice whose ideology was the opposite of Scalia's could ask Scalia, "Can you give me X in this opinion?," & Scalia's response would be, "sorry, but the Constitution meant Z then & it means Z now," & if the justice to whom he was speaking then wanted to try & see if Scalia would at least be willing to meet in the middle at Y, Scalia would just repeat himself before going on to basically piss in the wind with a dissent. He just lacked an ability to compromise that even Rehnquist - or, at least, Chief Justice Rehnquist - didn't. But that's what can happen when you give lifetime appointments to ideological purists who sit on bottomless wells of self-righteousness, & it's the same with Thomas as well: "THOMAS, J., dissenting" might as well be the same as a bear sh*tting in the woods at this point. In any event, though, it's why Rehnquist was arguably able to achieve far more for the conservative legal movement in terms of outcomes than Scalia was: because Rehnquist, unlike Scalia, was actually willing to compromise, which is what could enable a conservative justice like him to actually have input on the decisions that - although he may not entirely agree with - still matter. It's basically a study of a pretty stark contrast between trying to get the law to where one thinks it should be by either inching one's way there or by rigidly adhering to one's ideological beliefs.

[brucejoel99]

Toobin & others have offered a similar such point in their writings, yeah: basically, Scalia simply wasn't willing to concede any sort of substantive ground to those justices whose approach to the law was the opposite of the originalist interpretation which he saw himself as chained to, as said approaches just aren't reconcilable. A justice whose ideology was the opposite of Scalia's could ask Scalia, "Can you give me X in this opinion?," & Scalia's response would be, "sorry, but the Constitution meant Z then & it means Z now," & if the justice to whom he was speaking then wanted to try & see if Scalia would at least be willing to meet in the middle at Y, Scalia would just repeat himself before going on to basically piss in the wind with a dissent. He just lacked an ability to compromise that even Rehnquist - or, at least, Chief Justice Rehnquist - didn't. But that's what can happen when you give lifetime appointments to ideological purists who sit on bottomless wells of self-righteousness, & it's the same with Thomas as well: "THOMAS, J., dissenting" might as well be the same as a bear sh*tting in the woods at this point. In any event, though, it's why Rehnquist was arguably able to achieve far more for the conservative legal movement in terms of outcomes than Scalia was: because Rehnquist, unlike Scalia, was actually willing to compromise, which is what could enable a conservative justice like him to actually have input on the decisions that - although he may not entirely agree with - still matter. It's basically a study of a pretty stark contrast between trying to get the law to where one thinks it should be by either inching one's way there or by rigidly adhering to one's ideological beliefs.

Didnt Scalia care much more about Precedent and stare decisis than Thomas does

It depends: Scalia would often write opinions that were actually inconsistent with originalism & textualism in favor of a traditionalist decision instead, yeah, but at the same time, he was still a guy who was willing to go so far as to write an opinion that literally called for a judicially-imposed abolition of the recess appointment power.