Originally posted by whodey
I could care less if his mother nursed Rush Limbaugh as an infant.
Anyhew, he sounds Progressive to me. The Constitution now means nothing since we have cell phones, whatever that means.
That aside, is it safe to say we both have nothing but disdain for this mental midget?
It is a frightening thing knowing who is running the country.
Posner was and is quite critical of the type of "originalism" championed by Scalia and Thomas, but ideologically he would best be described as moderately conservative - he's a laissez faire type on economics but somewhat socially liberal.
This review of a Scalia book gives an example why Scalia "originalism" can yield perverse results contrary to the intent of an author:
Does an ordinance that says that “no person may bring a vehicle into the park” apply to an ambulance that enters the park to save a person’s life? For Scalia and Garner, the answer is yes. After all, an ambulance is a vehicle—any dictionary will tell you that. If the authors of the ordinance wanted to make an exception for ambulances, they should have said so. And perverse results are a small price to pay for the objectivity that textual originalism offers (new dictionaries for new texts, old dictionaries for old ones).
This is also an interesting observation:
A legislature is thwarted when a judge refuses to apply its handiwork to an unforeseen situation that is encompassed by the statute’s aim but is not a good fit with its text. Ignoring the limitations of foresight, and also the fact that a statute is a collective product that often leaves many questions of interpretation to be answered by the courts because the legislators cannot agree on the answers, the textual originalist demands that the legislature think through myriad hypothetical scenarios and provide for all of them explicitly rather than rely on courts to be sensible. In this way, textualism hobbles legislation—and thereby tilts toward “small government” and away from “big government,” which in modern America is a conservative preference.
The entire article is a good read for those interested in the issue of "originalism" v. "original intent". Of course, my position is quite different from Posner's but his criticisms of "originalism" are quite good.