No, I mean conservatives. Conservatives only pay lipservice to the US Constitution but really believe that THEIR world view should be implemented into law irrespective of limitations like Am13 on pregnancy (sorry involuntary servitude cannot be gotten around via strict liability)

BTW, I've read Heller - and it supports most of my claims about Scalia. Especially his nonsense parsing of what it means to 'bear arms'. On one hand he claims it means a limitation to those arms you can carry, but on the other hand he cites Madison's conscientious objector clause where "bearing arms" clearly refers to the wielding of ANY arms including cannons and other arms that cannot be "borne" by a single person.

IOW Scalia is creating himself a loophole within which he can invoke his BELIEF that Am2 does not apply to WMDs, by cleverly overparsing the term "bear" .

Scalia then goes onto a digression about the implied meaning of self-defense - even though he kicked off the discussion by pointing out that if the text had meant to be limited to the militia, it could easily have been written to mean that. Of course he doesn't apply it in the case of supposed self-defense. But that is to be expected of Scalia - once again wielding his analysis in a manner that serves his BELIEF rather than a consistent application of logical arguements.

What's really intersting is how Scalia dismisses Stevens' invocation of the drafting history to determine meaning, instead magically divining what the "widely understood" meaning.

Sorry, everything I've predicted here is coming true.

As for the "bullshit" analysis - come on, you have a better sense of humor than that to not have gotten the joke in inserting it in the Constitutional phrase. If you really need me to I can go back and demonstrate how the term "bullshit" would not have been understood 200 years ago without added explanation and that 200 years from now its strength as a pejorative descritor will also not be able to inherently be deivined. Thus your claim

Degs, in Kelo, the most natural reading of the 5th Amendment is the one it had 200 years ago

presumes the bullshit claim that you actually have an understanding of what the "natural reading" 200 years ago was. Just as Scalia magically can divine that the "widely understood" meaning is different than the meaning implied by the drafting history...

Its just personal belief being wrapped in a pretty and distracting bow of nonsense.