There may be a limit concerning how many answers
I m gonna get from him
Considering that the event is only a hour long, and it is sold out, you will be doing great to even get to speak to him.
Let us know how it goes, most of us can not hobnob with SCOTUS Justices you know, so you be our eyes and ears MKay?
OK. I enjoyed the meeting with Justice Scalia; tasty breakfast of pastry, eggs, meats & fruits.
I asked him if he coud conceive of any reason against rehabilitating the "priviliges or immunity" clause.
He was not as clear in his response as I 'd like,
but I admit that my own ability to hear was at fault.
The best that I coud make out: he said something like
that the "due process" clause woud do it too
(which, obviously, it has). He made some assertions of the value
of not appearing to be extremist in Constitutional interpretation.
He mentioned the potential of the USSC getting packed,
as Roosevelt unsuccessfully attempted to do.
( Of course, it is super-obvious
that he coud not discuss obamacare. )
Someone else asked something about the 2nd Amendment.
I did not hear the entire question. Justice Scalia said that
, the court did not
say that u can ONLY
carry guns in the home,
but in fairness, he also referred to HELLER
's obiter dicta
qua the States regulating the right to bear arms in the streets.
This reveals his state-of-mind as of today.
Note that in argument of either HELLER
he did comment to Alan Gura, Esq, something about
keeping guns "out of the hands of criminals," as if that were possible.
of that has not yet been argued,
nor has the Constitutional imperative of "equal protection of the laws"
qua the right of self defense. (If Martha Stewart opts to walk to the corner
for a quart of milk, she still has the Constitutional Right to pack defensive heat.)
I bet that Rosa Parks woud agree that the right to defend her life
from the predatory violence of man or beast is more important
than better seating for a few minutes on a bus.