On February 13, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away at the age of 79 after serving for 30 years on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia, son of Italian immigrants, father of nine and grandfather of 36, was a devout Roman Catholic and brilliant legal scholar. Because his death has left America’s highest court evenly split between liberal and conservative justices, his passing has caused a heated controversy over the appointment of the next justice. President Obama, Republican congressmen, and potential nominees for the 2016 presidential race have been tossing around arguments — and threats — from the moment the news hit the stand.
The controversy is perhaps fitting for Scalia, a man who never shied away from one, so long as his stances were firmly rooted in his principles. Nevertheless, it would be a terrible loss to see the profoundly influential legacy of Justice Scalia be swallowed up partisan infighting. In recent years, Scalia is perhaps most well known for his biting dissenting views on majority opinions by the Court concerning same sex marriage, abortion rights, and universal health care. However, his true influence is primarily found in the philosophy that drove his votes. Scalia viewed the constitution as a binding document that was to be strictly interpreted based on the intention of the founding fathers as determined in the 1780s. He saw the constitution as a “dead” document and believed that his duty on the Court was to carry out its laws to the last letter and curtail wanton judges from simply changing the law with every passing trend. Scalia summed up his approach well when he said: “Words have meaning and their meaning doesn’t change.” Although we may be familiar with this concept today, when Scalia first joined the academic scene, this philosophy, termed originalism, was thought to be practically extinct. One of Scalia’s most profound impacts on the country has been his revival of this doctrine in both the academic world and in popular culture. When a GOP candidate receives a round of applause upon boasting that he is carrying a mini constitution in his pocket, he can thank Scalia for making anyone care so much about a document written 200 years ago.
Justice Scalia has been accused of caring more about the laws, in the form of the constitution, than the law’s impact on the people. Although it may seem this way on the surface, he felt that protecting the law would better protect the people in the long run. He was not a champion of the downtrodden. Instead he was the champion of a set of laws, which he understood to be the best way to champion all people, downtrodden or not. Occasionally his philosophy led him to fight for the rights of the oppressed, most famously the rights of criminal defendants. He passionately argued for protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by the police, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront a witness of the prosecution in court. Like all of his written opinions for the Court, Scalia argued these views with his famous vigor and biting wit.
On the court itself, though Scalia had many important qualities, his manner and humor may be missed the most. Scalia was well known by the other Justices for his love of logical swordplay as well his colorful opinions, particularly when he would formulate a dissenting opinion. (See his description of the majority opinion on the Affordable Care Act as “pure applesauce.”) Although no stranger to partisanship, Scalia greatly valued the process of intellectual debate. When liberal justice David Souter retired, Scalia commented to David Axelrod, then an advisor to President Obama, “I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation. But I hope he sends us someone smart.” If only his high regard for the process of law could be remembered by lawmakers today as they pettily squabble over a chef’s salad of partisanship issues, such as the appointment of Scalia’s successor.