Macalia's Influence On Justice Scalia

Since his appointment in 1986 by former President Ronald Reagan, former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia served as the Supreme Court’s most renowned conservative. Acting as a sort of conservative judicial giant in the world of American politics, Justice Scalia’s appointment provided a beacon of hope for the political conservatives of the 1980’s, up until his recent death in February 13, 2016. He accomplished many great things in his tenure, and he is perhaps most remembered for his written opinions, which brought much public attention to the Supreme Court and its actions, in a way that has never been achieved by his contemporaries. In fact, he has been a tremendous influence on how Americans view the law and the constitution, from those interested
He never shied away from dissenting against the majority opinion when he felt it was wrong, and was no stranger to criticizing his fellow Justices, most notably for what he claimed was them swapping their role as judges for that of policymakers. He believed that his peers where often guilty of interpreting the constitution in ways that could not have been fathomed by the Founding Fathers, and used these interpretations to force social change. He was a self-proclaimed “originalist,” meaning he was an adamant opponent in the belief of a “living constitution”. He believed that the Court should interpret the constitution in the very same way the American people would have during its creation. His death in 2016 ended his tenure in the Court, however he will forever be remembered in his scornful opinions, which won the admiration of both conservatives and liberals with his unmatched eloquence and subtle humor. The book is ultimately a dedication to Justice Scalia’s expressive and fluent writing style, his straightforward way of debating, and the underlying vision that tied it all
Written around twelve years before his death in 2016, Scalia Dissents provides its readers with carefully selected examples of Justice Scalia’s more scathing and hard-hitting opinions. Its broad selection ranges from topics such as his interpretation of laws, to his stance on the death penalty, religious freedom, and free speech. From the beginning, it attempts to dispel the belief that Scalia served as a conservative “Big Bad Wolf” on the Court by explaining the differences between a political conservative and a judicial conservative, and providing examples on how his reasoning goes against his personal beliefs to stay as true to the constitution as possible. It also defines his process of textualism, a methodology which he uses to interpret the text of the law in a way that is neither too strict, nor too liberal, but sensibly in between (Scalia and Ring 26). The book also shows how Scalia was unwilling to grant special accommodations for religion through the Court, despite him being a devout Catholic, as he sees matters such as those are better fit for the people to decide through their local governments (Scalia and Ring 132). Despite being brief, Scalia has also touched upon the subjects of racial and gender inequality. He stated in a case early in his tenure that he believed that previous classifications favoring minorities should be