The Supreme Court has new robes:

http://fascart.blogspot.com/2010/01/supreme-court-sports-corporate-sponsor.html

Close enough..........

Justice Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He is a strong defender of the powers of the Executive Branch, believing presidential power should be paramount in many areas. He opposes affirmative action and other policies which treat minorities as groups. He files separate opinions in large numbers of cases, and has been dubbed "The Great Dissenter" for his minority opinions, often castigating the Court's majority in scathing language.

Now that Obama is coming out publically against this corporate rule, do you think this strong defender of the powers of the executive branch will rethink this bad decision?

He hates judicial activism except when he doesn't such as in the Gore v Bush and the campaign funding rulings. Picky little twit.

Just like his Mussolini-worshipping father was. Yes, Scalia's father really was a Fascist.

at the risk of annoying people, I'd really like to understand this better.

Could you, if you would be so kind, give me a sort of layman's description of these things? "advocating textualism in statutory interpretation", and "originalism im constitutional interpretation" just went WAY over my head!

I realize I'm asking a lot, but I'd really like to understand this more fully.

Sorry for slowing up the topic due to my ignorance!

I stick to very simple meanings. Sorry! You weren't referring to my post.

but in any case I DID actually google "advocating textualism in statutory interpretation" and, interestingly enough, the very second entry happens to be "Antonin Scalia - Wikipedia". lmao.

If noone wants to bother giving me a laymans explaination of this stuff, so be it, but I'll not be likely to go do a scholarly dissertations worth of research to find out. I'm just curious, as a layman. That's all.

All of those concepts give me a headache. It's like judicial string theory.

looking at the letter of the law, not at the context or at the possible intention of the law maker. Essentially, looking for a loophole to allow for something a law aimed to proscribe, or vice versa.

constitutional interpretation is just how you apply the constitution. Originalism means, to the best of my knowledge, this:
constitutional interpretation can be done two ways. The first is that you look at the constitution and at all the established precedent (how other judges have interpreted the constitution). The second (the originalism) means that you disregard that established precedent, and take your own judgement for a venture point. Needless to say, the second appraoch allows a much bigger opportunity to undo earlier verdicts.

junk to clutter the picture.

:D