[tpaine]

Well you've established that you're against due process, because you think it is being 'abused' by the courts in the special interest cases you favor.

- I, and the USSC Justice quoted, think it can be used to protect ALL of the bill of rights. -- ALL of our liberties.
Sorry, but the 'special laws' you want to enact will just have to pass the same constitutional tests that protect our gun rights.

[scalia_#1]

Well you've established that you're against due process, because you think it is being 'abused' by the courts in the special interest cases you favor.

No, that's not it at all really. I support due process. I don't support a reading of the due process clause that adds an extra-constitutional substantive component to the clause. If you support substantive due process, then have at it, but just keep in mind the extra-constitutional company that you keep. As for "special interest cases you favor," I'm not really sure what that means. If you mean I oppose the court's decisions in Lochner, Griswold, and Roe because of the subject-matters of these cases, then you've made an unfounded assumption. My disdain for these decisions rests solely on their distorted interpretations of the Constitution, and the "special interest" rights that they create.

- I, and the USSC Justice quoted, think it can be used to protect ALL of the bill of rights. -- ALL of our liberties.

As I've said in my prior response and in this one, if you want to quote Justice Harlan and employ substantive due process, fine. But for the record, Harlan is not saying that the 14th Amendment due process clause "can be used to protect ALL of the bill of rights," he's saying that it can be used to protect whatever liberties the court considers fundamental, even beyond the freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights. That's a pretty substantial difference.