Scalia to Fox? Wednesday, Jul 1 2015 

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egoistic. Of course, the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”

–Justice Antonin Scalia attacking fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissent in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paging Roger Ailes! Read the above and the rest of Scalia’s dissenting opinion and tell me if that’s not the perfect tone to fill a spot on Fox’s schedule. Surely, with Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee now off your payroll, there’s an opening for an abrasive Supreme Court justice temperamentally suited to satisfy the red-meat appetite of Fox’s primetime audience.

Like Bill O’Reilly, Antonin Scalia also meets the first requirement of a celebrity arbiter in today’s political environment. Seated at a table with Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Copernicus and Voltaire, he’d still think he was the smartest guy in the room. And more: Scalia also has that special gift of the best in Fox political analysts, the inability to disagree without being disagreeable.

Think of this as well: It’s one thing for an intellectual nincompoop like Palin, who’s never heard of, much less read, the Federalist papers, to mouth the cheap demagogic line that Supreme Court decisions are “undemocratic” because they’re rendered by “unelected lawyers”; but for a bona fide Justice who claims to channel the Original intent of the Founders to make that argument, as Scalia does, is something you’re not going to get out of any washed-up candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Like, say, Scalia’s soulmate in demagogic trash talk, Donald Trump.

Am I getting personal here, arguing ad hominem? Good. It fits the subject. What’s more, as Scalia’s erstwhile hunting partner Dick Cheney once said after insulting a U.S. senator, I feel better for having done it.

Sound bite to remember

“Any man who tells you he starts off each morning with a cold shower will lie about other things.”

         –Dwight Eisenhower, commenting on a news report about his presidential campaign opponent Adlai Stevenson, 1952

The Tea Party Justice Tuesday, Dec 7 2010 

Who would have guessed Antonin Scalia was a Tea Partier? In a recent appearance at Texas Tech University, Scalia threw his considerable weight behind a pet Tea Party project, repeal of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That, in case you don’t have your Glenn Beck-autographed copy of the Constitution nearby, is the amendment providing that U.S. Senators be elected by popular vote rather than selected by state legislatures.

Passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, argues the irrepressible Scalia, was a “progressive” abomination that brought on “the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the 20th century.”

Which is to say that allowing voters of a state to choose their senators directly, at the polls, was the first step leading to the expansion of centralized federal power at the expense of the individual states.

Quite a stretch, if you ask me, but who am I to cross juridical swords with the godfather of constitutional originalism? Irrepressible he may be, but give Scalia credit for coming up with an original idea for cutting the cost of U.S. Senate races: The going rate for buying votes in state legislatures – the way U.S. Senators were sent to Washington before 1913 – is a helluva lot cheaper than campaigning for popular support. Just think how many millions Meg Whitman might have saved.