Scalia made a mighty effort to shape and remake law and public policy in his narrow, retrograde image of what law and public policy in America should be. The Scalia dividend is that with his absence from the court that thankfully will change.
In crucial areas of the law, much may depend on who takes Antonin Scalia's place. Including whether America, like Yemen or North Korea, continues to execute the innocent.
There should be no more nonsense like the blind spots that accompanied Powell, or the ham-fisted inanity offered by John Roberts at his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, in which he compared justices to baseball umpires calling balls and strikes.
Trump didn't publicly drop Scalia's name at the convention solely because he considered him the judge with the right stuff. It was the one person that he knew, above all others, was considered a demigod among party ultra-conservatives, pro-lifers and evangelicals.
All things considered, this was a good term for liberals and progressives. But anyone thinking that more smooth sailing lies ahead should be advised that the court's current 4-4 split, which presently tilts leftward on many topics, won't last long.
From unions' rights to tribal jurisdiction, immigration and birth control, Scalia's absence has already impacted a number of important decisions, foreshadowing how the country might be shaped by substantial changes to the court's makeup over the next president's term.
Those who have studied the role of the Supreme Court in American life understand above all this November's election is about who will nominate and confirm the next Justices.
You probably think I'm nuts. Just after the Senate has killed two bills that would have modestly restricted gun rights, am I seriously proposing that we tamper with the wording of the Second Amendment?
It would be one thing if Scalia had gotten the historical analysis of the Second Amendment correct in Heller. But the tragic fact is that he got it so thoroughly wrong.
According to many observers, the Supreme Court is struggling to do its job. It is "diminished," "hobbled," perhaps even "crippled."
Last fall, when I first arrived at George Mason, I decided to major in economics. Halfway through the semester, I learned about the large amount of money GMU has accepted from Charles Koch and the power such money has given the Charles Koch Foundation at other universities.
When it comes to choosing between children who need schools that will prepare them for a successful future and help stabilize our country's economy or policies that benefit adults only and special interests, the choice is clear. We must choose Justice and Children every time!
Two of the biggest names in the arts and politics died this year: Prince and Antonin Scalia. While it's hard to find much in common with these two men, there is one thing they should have in common: the way their deaths were handled.
In an ideal world, judges do not subscribe to Cesare Lombroso's racialised typology of a criminal. Instead, they must apply their minds to each case without fear, favor or prejudice.
Interesting (or eerily) Chief Justice Roberts spoke these words 10 days before Scalia's death -- he couldn't have predicted how aptly he would describe Republican senators' refusal to consider Merrick Garland under the current political moment.
There was some good news and some bad news on marijuana this week, which got us thinking about how the subject of federal marijuana policy relates to the presidential nomination race.