frightening is an understatement - We need to re-elect President Obama to ensure we have fairminded judges on the Supreme Court. Right now some of our judges appear to be ignorant of what our constitution stands for in this country.

The underlying problem with Scalia's reasoning is that even the framers of the Constitution did not agree on what it meant when they wrote it. They spent the rest of their lives debating the meaning of the the document. Scalia only chooses to cite those founders whose views mirror his own, and he dismisses those who do not.

When our forefathers wrote the constitution, slavery was legal. I wonder if he argue that it should still be allowed.

On the important legal issues of the day, Scalia thinks an Easy button from Staples is all that is required. What a buffoon.

Try this... The Constitution is ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights is ratified in 1791. Do we know to an absolute certainty that the right of privacy so essential to Griswold and, later, to Roe is *not* guaranteed by the Constitution? The 3rd and 4th Amendments do in fact display a concern for privacy (at least). No quartering of soldiers. The right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." These are concerns that go back to English common law - that a man's [sic] home is his castle.

So when the 9th Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," perhaps we ought to start asking whether Justice Douglass was right in Griswold after all. The fact that the question of whether there is a right of privacy was not examined until 1969 in no way diminishes its reality. The original intent of the framers was not to limit the rights of individuals but to acknowledge them. And those rights do not go stale. Indeed, they mature as the nation matures.

Is it really an easy question, Justice Scalia? Really?

Is he still on the bench? I guess this book will work towards excusing him from hearing many more cases and even MORE of that pesky brain work!

The Constitution in and of itself was a revolutionary idea. "Evolutionary" might be a better word. It was the result of argument and compromise, and as pointed out, has been argued and debated since written. The Preamble sets forth the purpose of the Constitution as, in part "to form a more perfect Union." Not a perfect Union. The Constitution provides for its amendment by the legislature and states, but also its interpretation by the courts. I submit that the founders INTENDED the Constitution to be debated and interpreted as the nation grew and the world changed. These men (unfortunately, the times excluded women directly from the process, although I assume women such as Abigail Adams had influence on her husband's thinking) were well versed in the progress of human thought, and certainly never intended that the examination of the nature of people, their rights, and their understanding of the world, would stop developing upon ratification.

Scalia's lust for the limelight is exceeded only by his gigantic ego, which is only exceeded by his bad manners.

Since his comments clearly stipulate that he has already reached conclusions regarding cases involving the death penalty, abortion and by extension, Gay Rights, he is thereby recused from hearing cases that involve any of these matters.

This man is a pig who abuses the sanctity of the office he holds to promote his own personal agendas.

It's surprising that Scalia has actually softened his stance on sodomy laws since they were traditionally applied universally to everybody engaging in "unnatural acts," not just homosexuals. So, rather than stumping for exclusively P-in-V missionary style between a married man and woman, he's now just against anything icky that people of the same gender want to do with each other.

Methinks Nino may have finally discovered the internet.

I wonder how big a government we'd need to enforce all of these new restrictions? I mean, big government is anathema to these people, isn't it?

Well, just look at him: fat, over-boiled cabbage. There's a butter band around his heart and we can only hope someday soon it clenches.

Textualist judges are bad judges. It's a shame that men who have this high honor are incapable of "judging" any better than a first year law student.

Any judge that thinks medical care should not be available to all because of possible governmentally enforced asparagus buying is too stupid or too doctrinaire to be on the bench.

Burning witches? Easy!

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito."

This should be the poster, the T-shirt, the bumper sticker, the core of the ad campaign to re-elect President Obama from now on!

I see, so the law is mere opinion. And of course history is what you make of it. Yes very simple very simple indeed Mr. Simpleton.

The man has been touting the black cape and living in the cave for far too long.His words are old.

The reason Scalia is not afraid to show his bigotry is because he no doubt either is a secret member of ALEC or good friends with all of them past and present. ALEC is responsible for all of the strange laws we are having throw at us this year. Privatizing our schools and prisons. Gee I wonder who will rake in the profits? How about the laws to make voting harder for certain people, Iowas bill to ban whistle blowing in cases of animal abuse. The attacks on the unions, our firefighters, nurses and teachers. Lets not leave out fracking everywhere and anywhere even where we don't want it. Look them up. It will scare the hell out of you

It's hard for Scalia to encounter many "difficult" decisions. Why? Because his mind is already made up.

I so hope that Elizabeth Warren's campaign is making bunches of ads using these quotes from Scalia & Brown's answer from the other night about his favorite Supreme Court judge. As Rick Perry once said, "Oops."

Scalia is a bigotualist

Justice Scalia is really taking the easy way out. By using the "textualist" approach he can never be questioned or have his opinions impeached due to the fact that its so easy to check. However, for a man of his education and experience one would think that he would have a deeper understanding of the Constitution. One would think that he would have advanced beyond the adolescent literal view of the world. I'm amazed that he is proud of his lack of depth.

Here's what another Republican appointee (J. Brennan) had to say on the subject (in a 1985 speech at Georgetown University): "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be the measure to the vision of their time."

But you have to hurry to Mitt's site....now that Rachel mentioned it...he will change it tomorrow.

He's not a Judge. He's a Republican first and he should step down. He should not be on the court.