Can a man who obviously doesn't believe in law over necessity remain on the Supreme Court?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin M. Scalia echoed the administration's view when he said in a BBC Radio interview yesterday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a hidden bomb about to blow up. "It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia said. "And once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game: How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?"Never mind Scalia prejudging the case in favor of his political cronies, he plainly shows the willingness to make up the "law" as he goes. The whole doctrine of originalism, like rigid federalism, so zealously adhered to by Scalia and his ilk, can be discarded when necessary to achieve the "right" outcome. After Bush v. Gore, this shouldn't be a surprise.
What it should be is impeachable.