Now that an analysis has been conducted through Justice Scalia's opinions on the Supreme Court, his writings, and his publicly made statements, the attention can turn towards the reasoning behind his embracement of originalism. As exposed above, the purported search for original meaning that Justice Scalia embraces, leaves no constraint on his ability to make consequential decisions. With little or no constraint, Justice Scalia can make any decision, tracing it back to originalist principles, and make it fit perfectly with his preconceived conservative beliefs. This presents a question of whether or not another judge, using the same adherence to originalism, could equally trace back intent only to justify liberal beliefs. It sure seem plausible. Originalism as the “hammer” of Justice Scalia, falsely assumes that a clear meaning can be obtained by looking at history for intent, and wrongly concludes that this form of jurisprudence should control contemporary Constitutional decision making.
In looking at the multitude of the Justice's opinions throughout the history of the Supreme Court, it appears that no Justice has written with the intense sarcasm of Justice Scalia (McCaffrey and Messina, 119). It is evident the Justice Scalia has a deep understanding of rhetoric, and …show more content…
The dialectical “hammer” gives Justice Scalia a tool that he thinks is an acceptable way to handle disagreements with fellow Justices. Once again, you can sense him uttering his all too famous phrase, “[a]nyway, that’s my view. And it happens to be correct” (qtd. in Murphy, 366). In using this type of terminology and comportment towards his fellow Justices, it is hard to find any substantial advantage. Maybe Justice Scalia's intent, in these opinions is to exert the interest's of those in power, rather than working from a foundation of