I See Scalia's Point?

Scalia gave a talk here a while ago where he railed (shock) against the idea of "evolving standards of decency". He argued that if it were up to courts to decide what "evolving standards" were, they were no longer arbitrators of law, but they were simply expressing their own views at worst, or the views they perceived as the majority at best...neither of which is really the point of the SCOTUS.

Anyway, I stumbled upon this article about the European idea of "margin of appreciation" which sounds much like what he argued against. In fact, the problems outlined in the article I linked to are basically the same ones that 1. have been seen today (finding a more liberal state--or district in our case--to hear your case in order to set precedent) and 2. having the court say one thing today and a completely opposite ruling just ten years later.

I hate to agree with Scalia, and I don't completely, but I thought the parallels were interesting.