Is Scalia *auditioning* for the Chief Justice position?

.
Is Scalia *auditioning* for the Chief Justice position?

I'll let you decide . . .

1.) On June 27, 2002 President George W. Bush stated his theocratic litmus test for federal judicial nominees:



2.) Then on March 2, 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

---

BTW, shouldn't you be insulted by Scalia's arrogance? His swipe at America? That we don't know the 10 Commandments or their meaning? And the inference . . . that only Scalia does, that he is in the 10% and 15%? This is the guy who's auditioning for the Chief Justice's job. Whoa be it for America!!

---

.

More *fun* stuff at:

1.) "I am a textualist," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I am an originalist. I am not a nut."
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/alert_archive/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=118

2.) " 'I am not a strict constructionist,' Justice Antonin Scalia said. . . . Scalia acknowledged a certain notoriety. He expressed amusement that he is often asked 'When did you first become an originalist?' like it's a weird affliction that seizes people, like 'When did you start eating human flesh?' And he observed, with some pride: 'My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35096-2005Mar14.html (Scalia giving a lecture at the Woodrow Wilson Center on Monday, March 15, 2005).

3.) Some scholars detect a rightward drift in Justice Scalia's recent decisions. "When I worked for (Scalia), he had a set of principles, and those principles led to principled results, which were sometimes conservative and sometimes liberal," said Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford who was also a law clerk to Justice Scalia. "I don't understand anymore how his jurisprudence follows from his principles," said Lessig. (boldface emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/alert_archive/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=118

4.) "Just as that manner of textual exegesis facilitates the formulation of general rules, so does, in the constitutional field, adherence to a more or less originalist theory of construction. The raw material for the general rule is readily apparent. If a barn was not considered the curtilage of a house in 1791 or 1868 and the Fourth Amendment did not cover it then, unlawful entry into a barn today may be a trespass, but not an unconstitutional search and seizure. It is more difficult, it seems to me, to derive such a categorical general rule from evolving notions of personal privacy. Similarly, even if one rejects an originalist approach, it is easier to arrive at categorical rules if one acknowledges that the content of evolving concepts is strictly limited by the actual practices of the society, as reflected in the laws enacted by its legislatures."
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Tq80o9ALWzoJ:angel.ac.yu.edu/CLSUploads/Files/khuigens/Scaliz.doc+Scalia+originalist+CBS&hl=en (a 1989 University of Chicago Law Review article authored by Scalia where Scalia waxes and pontificates how accurate and authoritatively superior is his theory of jurisprudence he calls "originalism" or "textualism.")

---

All this to merely turn the legal clock back to a time when the Bill of Rights didn't "attach" to the States, corporations ran untrammeled by federal judicial opinions, and the right to privacy was an unconceptualized figment of legal imagination . . .

---