I wrote this in the Queen's blog (see Tom Hawkson's comment there also):

I have had it with INjustice Scalia. And I have much more respect for Justice Thomas. I was disappointed with Thomas after Lawrence &Garner, but he at least didn't demogogue the issue as did Scalia. Unlike that lying hypocrite Scalia, Thomas shows himself to be a consistent, principled defender of federalism, of leaving things like this to the states to decide, as the Tenth Amendment clearly demands. Good for him. According to Scalia, if the people or legislators of a state vote to prohibit something such as homosexual relations, then he'd let them do it. But, if the people or legislators of a state vote to legalize something such as marijuana, why then, the federal government should march in with its jackboots and prohibit it.

This infinite expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause dates from one of the most disastrous decisions in American history, when FDR's packed court ruled that the federal government prohibit a farmer from growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption. I admire FDR as a War leader against Hitler, but, domestically, his New Deal wrecked the Constitution. I'm against that.

I then added:

Tom Hawkson, a.k.a., Wince:

I posted my comment before I saw yours. I completely agree with you on this. Excellent analysis. This whole thing confirms my position: Thomas for Chief Justice. Scalia -- never.

I wrote:
"....I admire FDR as a War leader against Hitler...."

I must add that I admire Churchill every bit as much in that War against Hitler, and at least he didn't wreck his own country's judiciary and Constitutional law in order to advance an economic agenda. Churchill was a Conservative.

I must also add that I'm disappointed in Justice Kennedy. He wrote a splendid decision in Lawrence &Garner defending the right of the individual man or woman to privacy in his or her own home, to "liberty in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions". "....At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life...."

So -- what happened to his thinking between now and then? President Reagan appointed both Kennedy and Scalia -- and he didn't do so in order to defend and extend the New Deal! I have had it.

I'm one of those old geezers, an old reactionary. I'm so glad I'm not young. As I said previously, the Watergate imbroglio had far more style than any subsequent such affair or all of of them put together. It was riveting. My whole family watched the hearings on the TV or listened to them on the radio. My friend David Lynn Smith and I watched the hearings on the TV while even as we created our spectrum.

And the young today missed out on the greatest historical event of my life: the Apollo 11 Moon landing. We watched that, too, on the TV. "Luna Prima Passo" read an Italian headline above a photograph of Neil Armstrong's first footprint on the Moon. "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Ayn Rand was right. That was exaltation, the triumph of man's soul.

Too bad I was born too late to see the McCarthy hearings. And, of course, D-Day. I'm proud that my father fought there, fought the Nazis at Normandy on that most crucial day of the most crucial war in mankind's history. D-Day. D-Day. D-Day. D-Day....