It amazes me that anyone can doubt his intellect. He understands the Constitution better than anyone and is able to determine what is constitutional in a simple, matter of fact manner. I'm sure that those who think that he is thwarting their chosen positions feel that he is a dim, angry ideologue, but the job of a SCJ is to judge  the constitutionality of the case before them. He is able to cut through much of the nonsense and rule reasonably and honestly.

Unyieldingly conservative? Yes. Controversial? Definitely. Effective? Of course. Antonin Scalia provokes extreme emotions in many followers of the Supreme Court. With his irrascible nature and bluntness, the Justice they call 'Nino' is a man of very little subtleness, but also a man of uncanny intelligence and judicial acumen. Though many may disagree with him, there is no question about the fact he has made a significant imprint in today's legal landscape- and may as well continue to do so for years to come.

Justice Scalia is without question the brightest member of the Supreme Court. His writing is consistently clear, logical and often humorous, qualities largely non-existent in the often turgid prose that issues from the Court.

This man is a true (in)Justice. He is the most ideological person you could possibly have on the Supreme Court. He has hijacked the word "originalism" to mean the law for the sake of the law, totally disregarding the human aspect of the cases before him. He destroys the Constitution by allowing the individual rights of every person be subjected to frivolous wishes of the governing majority. The sooner Scalia is out of the Supreme Court, the quicker the American people can feel at home in their own country.

He is the intellectual leader of the court.

He is the most intelligent constitutionalist sitting on the bench. I hope he will one day be Chief Justice.

Good ole New Jersey boy... by far the most adroit mind and learned jurist on the bench today. The son of two immigrants he rose up through academia graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and was valadictoria at Georgetown where he graduated with a graduate degree in History. His passionate originalist legal reasoning and sharp mind put him at odds with simpletons Kennedy and O'Conner, and the leftist ideologues Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens- but he surely isn't afraid to point out the court's hubristic folly. His dissents are some of the most- not only skilled- but entertaining decisions ever written by a Supreme Court jurist. In Stenberg he states I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Courts jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human childone cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human childproscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion. In the Grutter v. Bollinger he points out the basic disarray the Court is in trying to find reverse discrimination constitutionally permissible. In Lawrence v. Texas he skillfully addresses the failure of the Court's jurisprudence. He points out the ridiculous logic applied to come to the decision it had- that sodomy is a fundamental right protected under the equal protection clause is simply assinine. The Court's logic literally sets the tone for expansive notions of sexual rights and polygamous marriages. And how can we prohibit prostitution? In reality Scalia knows that the other jurists have no regard for our fundamental law and are beholden to nothing but ideology. However they cloak it non-originalism non-interpretivism evolving standards of aspirational princples it's all short hand for I couldn't care less about the constitution I'm going to legislate into law my ideological beliefs. Scalia a humble man, is even more humbled by his position stating that he is overwhelmed by its importance at times should have rightful contempt for the other naifs he works with- they're not in his league.

His appointment to the Supreme Court was actually the high point of the Reagan Presidency, a presidency which enjoyed an incredible number of high points. His approval in 1986 made necessary the ugly, unconstitutional Bork hearings a year later, which did more to alienate left-wing democrats from the American people than the affiliation with any leftist group (PETA, NAACP, MoveOn.org, etc) could ever do. One can only hope that the presidency of George W. Bush, another administration with many, many high points, will have a similar appointment to the Supreme Court to point to as its judical legacy.

We'd be much better off if we had 9 Scalias and Thomases on the Court. For all you know, Scalia could have the most liberal opinions on issues, but he knows that on many issues it is not the Supreme Court's business to decide. PEOPLE DECIDE LAWS, NOT JUDGES! Boy, people need a civics lesson. Scalia is a great leader on the court, and hope Bush can appoint similar stellar judges that will let states decide their own issues.

Dude just quit hiding it and put your white robe and hood on and burn your crosses proudly. We all know you want to.

Slowly destroying the country

A great mind and judge.

Confirmed 96-0 by a the U.S. Senate in 1986. You Scalia haters don't get it. He doesn't care whether a Congress or State legislature bans or legalizes sodomy, he simply understands that it is not his job to declare such laws unconstitutional. There is no constitutional right to sodomy, and if we want to ban it, we should call our legislators, or if we want it legalized we call our legislators and mandate it the old fashioned way, by passing or changing laws, not by allowing folks with life tenure to decide for the rest of us via judicial fiat. If Scalia is so anti-civil rights how do you explain his opinion in Riverside as one of many examples? He is THE only justice who writes his own opinions and is certainly one of the greatest writers in the Court's noble history. UPDATE: If you still think Scalia hates minorities, and civil rights, then go read Blakely v. Washington which will be the most influential case in criminal law since Miranda. While he didn't declare the Federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional, he implied almost as much re: Washington State Sentencing. (violation of 6th Amendment right to jury trial) The impact has been overwhelming in less than a month with several lower federal courts declaring the Fed Sent Guidelines Unconst. Defendants everywhere are celebrating. This was all done within Scalia's framework of textualism the same methodology those of you on the left detest.

To all those informed individuals who dismiss Justice Scalia as a bigot - you would be well served to actually read the text of some of the opinions and dissents that Scalia has penned. Justice Scalia is in the upper echelon of all American legal theorists. In 50 years law students will be studying his conceptions of the constitution. I challenge anyone who feels necessary to resort to the undergraduate gambit of calling Justice Scalia names to point out one instance in which Justice Scalia has acted without the grace we demand of supreme court justices. And for those hung up on his failure to recluse himself from the recent Cheney case - do yourself a favor: read the actual precedent required to have a justice recluse himself - it is a hell of a lot higher than merely taking a business trip. For example - the esteemed Justice Marshall father of the Supreme Court did not recluse himself from Marbury v. Madison - and he was personally involved the the creation of the question presented!!!

I lost all respect for this man after he refused to excuse himself from the case involving the Energy Comission task force. If you went hunting with the Vice President at a compound owned by an oil company on a government jet, would you be impartial? quack quack indeed

notriously terrible jurist the hero of the right well it just goes to prove that a third -rate whiteboy can be anything we wants why bother if i could give him a zero i would

A brilliant mind that sticks to the constitution and has a lot of what some justices are sorely lacking: common sense!

Should take a class on ethics since he obviously doesn't understand conflict of interest.

Ugh. The conservatives answer to Brennan. Smug as all get out, seems to think the rest of the world is beneath his great intellect. Would be better suited as a judge in an aristocracy, which seems to be his goal for the U.S. anyway.

The oh-so-principled Justice Scalia, is nothing if not a poster boy against judicial activism. Unless, of course, push comes to shove and his unique brand of judicial restraint compels him to stop counting votes in Florida. After all, what's a little electoral fraud among friends. A careful reasoner, he took pains to make clear that his decision in the Bush v. Gore election heist should have no future precedential value (i.e., it was a one-off payback for services rendered). Has no regard for minority rights within the democratic framework of majority rule, seeming to run with the same crowd that posts such sentiments here. Do you all really think democracy is two foxes and a hen voting on what to have for dinner?

One of the only independent thinkers on the bench currently. Strict textualist with some great writing ability. Opinions and dissents are well written and very articulate.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court on June 17, 1986. Scalia examines the law in principle, respects judicial restraint, and considers the legislators' and drafters' intent when interpreting statutes and the Constitution. Note that those commenting against him typically reference his politics which should be irrelevant. (These are the same people who complain about politicizing the courts.) Anyway, Scalia is a voice for judicial restraint, and notwithstanding the recent trend of making new law by judicial fiat, public policy is supposed to be decided by the political and legislative processes. In other words, it should not matter whether one likes the end result of a judicial decision because the process (ie the means) is just as or more important than the end result. Judicial activism if remained unchecked will result in the erosion of the American form of democracy, replaced by the aristocracy of the bench. Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936 in Trenton, New Jersey.

Brillant mind. Threat to those who are unable to understand the US Constitution. Supports his positions with masterfully reasoned thought. Fully supported by the Senate.

Another conservative Republican.

A scary person to have in a position of such great power.

Counted on to vote with the conservative bloc of Kennedy-Thomas-Rehnquist-Scalia, he generally goes against the first amendment, which should be the most important amendment (why else would it be the first amendment). Sometimes known as a sexist, he is a terrible Justice, in the most kindest words.

A faker, who does trot out a consistent line in the name of dialectic. He shows extraordinary contempt for Indian people, whose rights are clearly embodied in the Constitution. I'm sure he's frustrated, like anyone should be, by the arbitrary application of sources of law to generate decisions, but does it himself and approves of it for conservative causes, which now seems to correspond with hatred for the masses. He will be found guilty in the future of intellectual charlatanism and the now-neglected sin of superbia.

Ultra-conservative, dogmatist who should retire from the supreme court immediately. His right-wing politics are outdated and useless to this country and it's people. Do us a favor Scalia and go home.

Easily the most politically-motivated and least impartial judge. His true calling was to be a radical politican, not an arbiter of fairness. Putting a personal agenda ahead of what is clearly reasonable and just makes a mockery of our founding father's intentions for how the Supreme Court should operate.

God blessed us when He gave power to this unwaivering defender of good values. All the other decent ones cross party lines based on popular opinion, and are ignorant of the bible.

I'm giving Antonin Scalia two stars only because I respect him for never drifting away from his beliefs. It's extremely obvious that he is perhaps THE MOST conservative of all the judges on the Supreme Court. Back in 1986 when Mr. Scalia was awaiting confirmation as the newest Supreme Court Justice, he stated that he considered the most important part of the Constitution to be the system of "checks and balances among the three branches....so that no one of them is able to 'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people." Now fast forward nearly seventeen years later.... in the recent case in which the Supreme Court overturned a law banning homosexual practices in the state of Texas and elsewhere. Mr. Scalia was a strong supporter of the ban on homosexual practices and he voted against overturning this law. And he is praised by conservatives for "standing up for the Christian moral values of this nation". By the same token, I can scorn him for attempting to restrict the constitutional rights of two men, despite his statement "that no one of them [the branches of government] should be able to 'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people." I guess this does not apply to gays. People, we do not have to accept homosexuality as morally right, but we cannot deny these two men and others the right to have sex within the privacy of their own home. THAT is a violation of THEIR constitutional rights. Amazing that conservatives say in regard to gay rights: "we support equal treatment, but not special treatment". And then, they turn around and support Mr. Scalia's stance on this very important issue. The Texas Sodomy Ban was a violation of the constitutional rights of homosexuals everywhere, and I'm afraid that Mr. Scalia's ruling on this matter has exposed his true colors: that only the constitutional rights of good Christians are to be protected... to hell with all the rest.

I can feel the partisan thought in this room... basically, he has a very good interperetation of the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion, and is a pretty reasonable judge.

Antonin Scalia, the man who made me permanently hold the Supreme Court in contempt..a man for whom justice is not a desired end but merely a theoretical construct..a fascist in robes instead of a uniform..a disgrace to the bench..in which he is joined by Thomas and Kennedy..

Does a great job.

Just another sawed-off third-rate legal mind with a pervading inferiority complex and sense of inadequacy that translates into a man-sized chip on his shoulder. I've read some of his opinions and transcripts of his exchanges with attorneys pleading before the Court and I was shocked how trivial, simple-minded and reductive they were. Doesn't impress me as having a whole lot under the cap. Here's a so-called "Justice" who doesn't let justice and fact get in the way of his ideology. Interesting how he managed a political pay-off for helping to shanghai the 2000 Election, namely a cushy job for his idiot son who would have been painting houses otherwise if Daddy wasn't a SC Justice. This guy is an enemy of civil rights and one of the most noteworthy rightwing apologists of all time. Considering how high up in the legal system this guy is, how much influence and power he can bring to bear, it really scares the Hell out of you and makes you ashamed to be an American.

"Lowest allowable level" of civil rights, his works.

I think he is a fair judge, but occasionally too conservative. Wow...i was the first person not to vote a 1 or a 5 out of 19 people. It's amazing that people see things as so black and white, and cant see a middle ground on issues.

I'm not an opponent of judicial restraint, but I disapprove of his view of it. His basic philosophy for the court is "Don't overturn any laws, even if they are bad. Let congress repeal them. Unless of course I don't like the said law." Sounds a lot like bias.

It almost a toss-up between Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but I think Scalia is the finest member of this court, and possibly the greatest ever.

A true hero for methodically applying the letter of the law. For too much of the past century, judges have tried to usurp the authority of the legislative branch. You know, the one most accountable to the people. Even pro-choice folks can admit that Roe v Wade is silly judicial work, creating by judicial fiat what ought to have been worked out by Congress. Scalia is a lightning rod because he is the most rigorous mind and clearest voice for returning the written words of the Constitution to the center of judicial consideration.

George Dubya calls Antonin Scalia an "exemplary justice". Who does he think he's kidding? Scailia is a bigot, a far-right madman, and has just about ever quality you don't want to see in a leader. You cannot name me one good or worthwhile thing that Scalia has done (and don't even try to give me "he ruled in favor of Bush") in his entire flat career as a justice...or, wait a minute, I got that wrong. He's the opposite of justice. I have come to the conclusion that Scalia does not care about the well-being of this country, because if he did, he would retire. Take care, everyone!