Some say that is it bad form to speak ill of the dead. I take the position that it is even poorer form to lie and speak well of those who don't deserve to be lauded simply because they are no longer among the living. This latter concept is lost on those gushing with kind words for the late Antonin Scalia who, contrary to what one is hearing now, wasn't a brilliant jurist. He was instead a pompous bigot in love with his own perceived but non-existent brilliance. The constitutional rights of the many took a back seat to Scalia's own racial and religious prejudices and a number of his positions have lead to some of America's current problems, such as the horrific Citizens United decision and the unrestrained gun rights now pushing deaths by gun violence to exceed automobile accident deaths. Americans should be giving a shy of relief with the man gone. A piece in Salon looks at the truth about Scalia's less than brilliant career. A second piece looks at Scalia's undisguised animus toward LGBT Americans. First, these highlights from Salon:
th Amendment required the government to follow color-blind policies. There is no basis for this claim in either the text or history of the amendment. Indeed Scalia simply ignored a rich historical record that reveals, among other things, that at the time the amendment was ratified, the federal government passed several laws granting special benefits to African-Americans, and only African-Americans.of the Constitution would conclude that it prohibits affirmative action programs, but Justice Scalia was only interested in originalism to the extent that it advanced his political preferences.if someone had told them they were granting the same free speech rights to corporations they were giving to persons. Again as a historical matter, this idea is an almost wholly modern invention: indeed it would be hard to come up with a purer example of treating the Constitution as a “living document,” the meaning of which changes as social circumstances change. In other words, it would be difficult to formulate a clearer violation of Scalia’s claim that the Constitution should be treated as if it is “dead dead dead.”Justice Scalia, in particular, claimed to hold so dear: judicial restraint, originalist interpretation, and respect for states’ rights.
As for the piece looking at Scalia's animus toward LGBT citizens, here are excerpts:
Simply put, America is a far better place with Antonin Scalia no longer among the living. If there is a Hell, I suspect Scalia is now occupying his reserved seat.It’s a blessed thing for a great many that Scalia is off our high court, though even in death, he continues to bring harm to many who may be silently thankful for his departure.To Scalia, such progress not only represented bad law, he didn’t consider LGBT Americans worthy of legal recognition or protection. He thought it entirely appropriate that Americans and their governments be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians, that the “moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct,” as he called it, was just and right. Expressing animus toward LGBT individuals and conduct was perfectly fair, to Scalia.