From Lean Left, I found this at Sisyphus Shrugged:
Justice Scalia, dissent, Roper v. Simmons: protecting the lives of juvenile criminals is definitely unconstitutional because everyone I know thinks juvenile criminals are ickier than killing juvenile criminals is, and while the rest of the world may disagree, they're icky too and besides, the federal government should only impose values I agree with.Of course, the real force driving today's decision is not the actions of four state legislatures, but the Court's own judgment that murderers younger than 18 can never be as morally culpable as older counterparts. Ante, at 9 (quoting Atkins, 536 U. S., at 312 (in turn quoting Coker, 433 U. S., at 597 (plurality opinion))). The Court claims that this usurpation of the role of moral arbiter is simply a iiretur[n] to the rul[e] established in decisions predating Stanford,l? ante, at 9. That supposed rule -which is reflected solely in dicta and never once in a holding that purports to supplant the consensus of the American people with the Justices? views- was repudiated in Stanford for the very good reason that it has no foundation in law or logic.
Justice Scalia supports his arguments elsewhere in the dissent by quoting his dissent in another case. In other words, he argues that the constitutional argument is less sound because the last time he tried this he lost. Also, he declares the nineteen of the fifty states which allow the death penalty for juveniles (51% of death penalty states) to be tantamount to a majority, since the other states don't want to kill anybody and don't specifically object to killing kids.
Scalia is often out of control. He wants states to be able to decide whether or not they will continue to execute children. The way he can read that result, and the only way he can do so, is by ignoring the evolving standards test. He also chooses to ignore the rich history of international opinion and international law in American jurisprudence. I'm hoping this isn't a fault of many conservatives, but I'm starting to fear that it is.
Lean Left on how Scalia is a judicial fraud:
Scalia has no consistent legal position beyond there are somethings tat he finds icky, and they should be illegal, and there are other things he finds not-icky, and they should not be legal. Yes, he has a fifty dollar vocabulary and a way with sarcasm. Neither characteristic makes him a genius. They make him a hack with a fifty dollar vocabulary and a way with sarcasm.
I think we can now all agree that anyone who uses the words ?genius? or ?principled? when referring to Scalia can safely be mocked into oblivion.
I will say that he has moments of clarity in his opinions when he doesn't let his personal views completely cloud his judgment. Specifically, I can't ever completely hate him due to Crawford.
