Cross-posted to Random Fate.
An unexpected conclusion is presented by Pennywit at his eponymous weblog:
That’s something you don’t hear very often: That Justice Scalia does not apply his incisive views of the Constitution when his personal ox is being gored. Actually, other justices, and indeed, other judges, are far more guilty of this offense; differing strands of the law become more, or less, acceptable, depending on the judge’s political proclivities.
Except for Justice Thomas, who, while conservative, has demonstrated an almost dogmatic adherence to his interpretation of the Constitution, regardless of where it might lead him. There’s something to be said for this sort of justice, just as there’s something to be said for Justice O’Connor’s brand of narrowly tailored pragmatism; different approaches are appropriate for different cases. But a justice who adheres first to his political preference, and second to the law, is truly a “judicial activist,” for good or for ill.
NOTE: link to definition added
I suggest you read his entire post for the sometimes abstruse legal issues involved