[Skywalk]

Actually, I think he is a great mind, in that we agree.

He loves the Constitution in a limited fashion. He loves "order" way too much to be considered a true constitutionalist. Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers(though not all of them, I imagine.)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

He is a slave to stare decisis, and supports everything which makes me despise the USSC as an atrociously lazy bunch of folks..

He could do a lot to support changing the methodology regarding cases accepted, and could advocate a shorter, clearer method of issuing opinions on cases they accept. The vast majority of cases that they reject, but which are clear injustices could be resolved with a single paragraph and citation.

Frankly, the USSC has become the legal writing venue where baby lawyers decide what gets accepted, then write 60 page opinions justifying their beliefs.

[cookcounty]

" Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers"

If the Framers were in favor of allowing unnatural relations, how is it that none of them ever said anything against the anti-sodomy laws of their day? Obviously, it's today's SCOTUS majority decision that would have been abhorrent to the Framers.

[BaghdadBarney]

"Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers..."

Perhaps some. But his spirited denunciations of Griswold, Roe, Casey and now Lawrence all seem to have many of the Framers guiding his hand as they tap the keyboard. The so-called "privacy" right is the most pernicious and cancerous stain on America's body politic. It's turned the Supreme Court into nothing more than a supra-legislature, totally unrecognizable to the Framers.

[betty boop]

Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers(though not all of them, I imagine.)

Skywalk, do you think the Framers would have approved of the idea of justices of the Supreme Court writing the moral code for our society?