Scalia is coming out publicly against the recent Supreme Court Ruling on juveniles and the death penalty. For him, the decision of this should be left to the states. There are arguments for this, but the most compelling arguments are against it. It appears that Scalia doesn't really understand the constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the text. There is no "finding of new rights" in the decision. "Cruel and unusual punishment" is written directly into the constitution. Can anyone out there give me a definition of that phrase WITHOUT their own interpretation? Scalia would have the court abrogate its constitutional responsibility... and he wants to be the Chief Justice?
Scalia Slams Supreme Court