A reading of the opinion by Antonin Scalia in the case of the lawsuit brought against Walmart by women who work there because they were discriminated against in pay and position proves the above.
Scalia did not address the proven discrimination in his opinion. He did not want to blatantly uphold discrimination by ruling for Walmart and against the women. He weaseled out of it by ruling for Walmart that women as a whole have no right to seek redress for grievances, even though that right is granted in the Constitution.
The greatest effect of Sharia Law is the oppression of women. Under Sharia Law women have no right to seek redress for grievances, or any other right to do just about anything. The Muslim clerics even have Sharia Law guidelines on how to properly beat your wife.
Scalia has brought the same basic principle of Sharia Law, oppression of women, to a ruling from the Supreme Court. And, in violation of the Constitution.
By the way, even though Scalia refers to himself as Justice Scalia, the Constitution provides only for the appointment of "Judges" to the Supreme Court, not "Justices." Look it up, Scalia.
Now, about that expertise as to the law. I read, speak and understand the English language and thus have an ability to spot logical fallacies. A good example of that is provided by Scalia in reference to this discrimination case:
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that."
The above paragraph, based on the rules of evidence, would not be allowed to be presented as a legitimate argument in a court of law. Notice that everything Scalia refers to in that paragraph is about what is NOT in the Constitution, not what is in it.
In a court of law, under the rules of forensic evidence, what is patently non-existent is not allowed as evidentiary or testimonial evidence.
Even those untrained in the law can readily understand that any written document is only about what is in it. It cannot be about what is not in it. But, Scalia goes right on, basing his ruling on what is law wholly on what is not in the Constitution.
What is not in the Constitution is literally infinite. It includes everything that is not there. Also, what is not in the Constitution is the same as what is not written there.
Scalia could just as well have been reading from a blank piece of paper when he made his ruling, quoting from what is not there. Won't work, Mr. Scalia. We know better than that.
Well, Mr. Scalia, according to your ruling that what is not in the Constitution is the basis of law, you must now send Ed Martin one million dollars.
That's also not in the Constitution.