Media Matters, while correcting mistakes in a Washington Post article, does a good job at differentiating Alito from Scalia and Thomas or rather not.
Thomas really is the most extreme on the court. He's an originalist and does not believe in precedent. In his dissent in the eminent domain decision he cited the definition of the word use (as in public-use) from an 18th century dictionary and expressed that a 100 years of case law be overturned.
Scalia is an originalist but does believe in precedent. He's also a literalist, the law is what it says, not what the authors intended it to say.
The Washington Post article in question says that Alito distanced himself from strict constructionists. Well so do Scalia and Thomas, they aren't strict constructionists, they are originalists. Alito also stated he believed in precedence, but during his confirmation hearings so did Thomas, so really what good are these hearings?
No comments:
Post a Comment