As much as I like Scalia, I have been disappointed in his logic on abortion and homosexual marriage. If he understood the Constitution and its inception and tie with Natural Law Theory, then there is no way he can condone either of those things.....they deny unalienable rights to the child and they deny natural law and God’s Law of design of the man and woman. It is bizarre that he wavers on these two items. Everything else is fine but the fundamental freedom of religion is entailed in homosexual marriage and the right to raise your children with your religious beliefs is being destroyed by the secular humanism forced onto children with taxpayer money. The DOE is unconstitutional also....I don’t know why the court is so lax on protecting the Constitution, unless they are Marxist plants also. I know Ginsberg and Kagan and Sotomeyer are for sure. We are doomed if all three branches are now Marxists.
Once you have the basis wrong, all the logic you heap on top of the fallacious basis is incorrect. That's how people are so easily misled - they hear what sounds like logic without recognizing that the basis is wrong.
Objectively speaking, he is not being logical at all, because his basis is contrary to Natural Law. When he sticks with Thomas, whose thinking is congruent with Natural Law, Scalia is always correct.
Where are either of those things in the Constitution?