Scalia the Hypocrite?

I have suspected, and said, and perhaps even posted, this idea before - that Justice Scalia is no less a judicial activist than those "liberal" judges who maneuver through legalese to reach the conclusion they want, regardless of the plain language of the law, except that Justice Scalia does so for the Right.

One example of this is Justice Scalia's take on the First Amendment. Justice Scalia wrote in dissent on two First Amendment cases - the first, Lee v. Weisman, centered around a prayer before graduation. The majority saw the association with, or the appearance of endorsement of that religion, or at least the coercive nature of forcing a student to participate in a prayer at a public school for a religion to which he or she does not subscribe. Justice Scalia saw differently.

The second case, the just-released Washington Grange v. Republican Party, has the majority failing to see the association with, or appearance of endorsement of the platform of a candidate who chooses to associate himself with a political party when that party is unable to disassociate themselves from that individual (in essence, voters vote for the "R" before the candidate's name, thinking they're getting a Republican when they could be getting a [for example] Communist who chose to run as a Republican because the party cannot keep him from running under their name). Justice Scalia saw differently.

My own take on this matter and the parsing out of these two cases would pale in comparison with what Professor Kathleen Bergin wrote at the First Amendment Law Professors Blog. I would point my readers here for a very good read.