Justice Scalia went on a little rant today in reading his dissenting opinion on the Arizona immigration law. His comments were motivated by (and directed against) President Obama's recently announced policy on immigration.
Here's the thing I can't understand: President Obama announced his policy last week, but oral arguments on the Arizona Law concluded nearly two months ago.
Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to direct his opinion at a policy that was not brought before him... and didn't even exist at the time the case was heard?
It seems to me an act of extreme judicial activism to insert himself into cases that haven't even been filed, much less briefed, researched and argued.
Is he over-stepping his role?