While we’re on this topic, I’d encourage people to actually *read* the Heller decision. The majority made up a 2nd Amendment interpretation out of whole cloth that doesn’t withstand a few minutes’ scrutiny (as the dissent ably points 0ut). It’s really, really hard to support the twisted attempt to base easy access to guns on the 2nd; you have to willfully misread what the words right in front of you say. In Heller, the majority did exactly that. An intellectually honest court would strike it down next time around.
When people go on about how brilliant Scalia was, make sure you have this counter-example handy — it’s embarrassingly intellectually threadbare. Then there’s the matter of his “originalism” which also collapses in on itself after about 30 seconds’ reflection (hints: ask yourself *which* founder at *which* moment? what if original intent was to adapt to the times?)…not my idea of “brilliant” either.