So, what is going on with Scaila's remark that religion trumps the

[EV_Ares]

rule of common law? I thought the ACLU & other orgs would be all over this. How can he sit on the judicial bench after that statement?

Link: http://exm.nr/quCu9c

[RKP5637]

1. He's never belonged on the judicial bench IMO. n/t

[elleng]

2. His judicial opinions do not reflect unusual point of view;

sounds like that's a bit of 'overspeak,' of which he is frequently accused.

Please watch this inverview at Senate Judiciary Committee, with Scalia and Breyer, to get a sense of how Supreme's decisions are made.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Supreme-Court-Justices-Take-a-Seat-at-the-Witness-Table/10737424545/

[loyalsister]

3. Maybe he's a "constitutionalist"

As in member of the ironically named Constitutional party.

[Scuba]

4. Thanks for keeping this alive. n/t

[EV_Ares]

5. Thanks, they are going after Clarence Thomas of which I agree as well regarding

his wife's involvement with the tea baggers & other right-wing orgs but to me what Scalia did is even more revolting and disqualifies him from being on the bench even more than Thomas.