Scalia: Get Over It! (CBS News)

All judges are activist in certain respects! Get over it!

Gee, way to cite an impartial source...

(though I concede I am inclined to agree with the assessment)

i understand the implications of citing AU (which is why i gave the source to begin with).

but for me, the stanglehold the Religious Right has on our politics at the national and state levels is a bigger problem than healthcare, budget concerns, maybe even our wars in the middle east. I'm not even a "liberal" - other than in perhaps the classic sense. Separation of Church and State benefits both sides of the equation, regardless of what the James Dobson brigade is trying to sell us.

imo the evangelical arm of the GOP is a clear and present danger to the liberties ensured by the first ammendment. it is an impediment to science and education. This IS NOT the big tent GOP of Eisenhower or the limited govt GOP of Goldwater. The party has been hijacked by fearmongers who valorize ignorance.

concered: LOL...you dont know the definition of activist judge then

well by all means, fill me in. as near as I can tell, the term "activist judge" has little meaning outside of an epithet for a judge whose rulings the Right disagrees with. Well, I'm saying Scalia's disregard for precedents on the seperation of church & state have often pushed him into the category of activist judge imho.

Not true. The precedents on the separation of church and state are in violation of the intent of the First Amendment. That doesn't make him an activist, it made Hugo Black an activist.

This caused me confusion as well. On the Supreme Court oral argument page for this case it states:

George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners, v. Albert Gore, Jr., Et AL.

Petitioners for review in the Supreme Court *after* Gore first brought it to the courts in Florida.

The order of the names on appeal only indicates who sought review at that stage of appeal -- it does not indicate who went to the courts first.

For example, A goes to the courts . A wins. B appeals. At the appellate level, B would be the "petitioner" -- the party seeking review, even though A went to the courts first.

And he has backed up his every opinion with Constitutuional jurisprudence. In other words, he doesn't just make shit up.