Last month Scalia loathed the practice of taking into consideration foreign laws and international opinion. Nevermind that this (what “cruel and unusual means”) is the area where SCOTUS has the broadest authority in determining what is usually up to public legislatures otherwise – and not that they’re trying to apply EU or UN laws to the US government on random policy areas. Comparing international standards with US ones is just that abhorrent to him.
But this month, Scalia believes that statutes that limit rights based on your conviction in “any court”, means not just US courts but foreign courts as well. When we say you can’t own a gun because a justice system has sad you are a bad person, apparently we mean any justice system, not just ours. Of course some of these systems are horribly autocratic and convict at the slightest political whim, but that’s only a “worst case scenario” and “cherry picking” for people who are worried about abuse of authority. Of course when defending civil rights we should look at the average, not the worst thing the government could do with power.
I like the idea that Scalia is actually just a “munchkin gamer” who looks at laws with an incredibly realistic approach, and reads only what is there with a consistent interpretation. But it’s simply a good PR campaign, not how he actually rules.