Post below was a comment from the Huff Post article that we found interesting.
Regards,
Joe
"You don't have to be a historian or legal scholar to figure out how radical Scalia's legal theories are. You only have to read the Wikipedia entry for "common law." The U.S. court system is based on the British system. Decisions of the courts involve "statutory law," decided by the legislature, "regulatory law," which are administrative decisions by the executive branch, and judicial precedent known as "common law" or "case law." This system extends back through British history for almost a thousand years.
Scalia's departure from this, and his advocacy for a system in which courts lack authority to act beyond statutes enacted by the legislature, is radicalism, not conservatism. He's trying to get the United States to implement something like the Napoleonic code, which forbade judges from pronouncing general principles of law.
Scalia's remarks portraying our common-law system as some kind of new development that might get us into some kind of trouble comparable to 1930's Germany whose "judges began to interpret the law," are patently dishonest. He's the one trying to introduce something new. The Anglo/American system of building legal precedent through decisions that adapt to changing social needs and improved understanding over time has been in place for almost a millennium"
To say that "God exists" is the greatest understatement ever made across space and time.
| 
