Supreme Court Justice: Antonin Scalia Bibliography (Research Paper Sample)

Supreme Court Justice: Antonin Scalia
Arguably, Antonin Scalia is among the most prominent personalities in the United States of America in the past century. As a matter of fact, he was best known as an associate justice of the supreme court of the United States, appointed in 1986 by Ronald Reagan. Scalia was born on March 11th, 1936 in the town of Trenton, New Jersey. During the 1960s, he was a practicing lawyer, who then worked in the public service during the next decade. Perhaps, his most notable role during the 70s was his position as the assistant attorney general in President Richard Nixon’s general council. Notably, in the 1980s, he was part of President Ronald Reagan’s court of appeals. During the same period, the president nominated him as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, a capacity which he served until his death on February 13, 2016, at the age of 79. During his life, Scalia was known for coming up with some transformative legal theories, several vivid writings, and an outgoing personality (Liptak). The mentioned qualities made him a leader of a profound intellectual renaissance in his three-decade tenure at the Supreme Court. According to some individuals close to him such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Scalia was an extraordinary person and jurist. Furthermore, he went ahead to say that many of Scalia’s colleagues not only admired him but also treasured him. Consequently, his death was a great loss to the court and the country that he had served so loyally. In a bid to gain insight into the most significant aspects surrounding this prominent personality, and the enormous contributions he made towards safeguarding the American Constitution, it is judicious to look at his early life, his most notable opinions, and his death.
Scalia’s was the only child in his family, and his parents’ names were Salvador Eugene and Catherine Panaro Scalia (Biskupic 8). During his early years, Antonin Scalia enjoyed being an only child and admitted that he developed a secure feeling growing up since so much attention was given to him. One important fact to note is that Scalia’s life was substantially influenced by his father. For instance, Scalia acquired much of his central values regarding conservatism, discipline, and hard work from him (Smith 10). Additionally, Scalia’s environment played a fundamental role in shaping his leadership skills. For instance, he grew up in a multi-ethnic neighborhood of New York City, Queens. Moreover, he attended a public elementary school where he was a successful straight A student. After elementary school, Scalia joined Xavier High school in Manhattan and later the Georgetown University in Washington DC. After his graduation from the institution, he went on to study at Harvard Law School, where he met and married Maureen McCarthy on September 10, 1960 ("Antonin Scalia Bibliography").
Having looked at the major milestones in Scalia’s early life, it is wise to explore some of his notable brainchild opinions. In this regard, it is undeniable that his opinion was always a good read. For one, he was a reliable and conservative writer, who every once in a while broke rank. Moreover, he is credited with countless opinions, the first one being tied to the Lawrence versus Texas case in 2003. In the mentioned lawsuit, the Supreme Court struck down a law that was against sodomy in the state. In his dissent, Scalia contended that the decision of the court was as a result of a law-profession culture that was largely signed on to the “homosexual agenda.” Perhaps, a fascinating part of his objection came when he postulated that the decision fundamentally ended the practice of passing “moral legislation.” He argued that if moral disapprobation of homosexuality is not a legitimate state interest for disallowing that conduct, then the court had no grounds to be against it. ("5 Opinions From Justice Antonin Scalia That Are Worth A Read"). Consequently, there would be no justice in denying the benefits of marriage to gay couples exercising a liberty protected by the Constitution. Scalia pointed out that not even the encouragement of procreation would suffice as a reason for denying homosexuals marriage since even the elderly and the sterile were allowed to wed.
The second assertion by Scalia worth examining is tied to the Boumediene v. Bush case in 2008. In this particular litigation, a majority was of the opinion that terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay be granted the right to seek their release in a Federal Court. In reaction to the decision, Scalia delivered a coruscating dissent pointing out that for the first time, the United States Supreme Court was conferring rights in the constitution to non-Americans. According to him, the mentioned decision was likely to result in the loss of the American lives. He said that the game of bait-and-switch with which the opinions of the time played with the president would make the war on terror harder to the nation. Without a doubt, it would cause the death of many Americans. Nonetheless, that consequence could be tolerable if necessary as a way to preserve a time-honored legal principle crucial to the United States of America. However, according to Scalia, it was the court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle at the time that produced the decision.
Besides the Boumediene versus Bush case, Scalia brought to light some compelling arguments in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld litigation. It is important to note that in an earlier lawsuit, Scalia had written against the Bush administration, postulating that the United States could not hold its citizen indefinitely without placing charges or trying them. In his dissent, Scalia said that the Congress had a mandate to suspend some civil rights but had failed to do so when it authorized the use of military force. He wrote that if civil rights were to be cut back during wartime, it had to be done both openly and democratically as required by the Constitution. In particular, this was as opposed to the silent erosion of an opinion of the court. Notably, Scalia concluded that many people think that it is not only inevitable but also entirely necessary that liberty paves a way to security during times of national crisis. Furthermore, he opined that during the extremes of military exigency, the law falls silent ("5 Opinions From Justice Antonin Scalia That are Worth a Read"). Consequently, whatever the general merits of the notion that war silences the law or regulates its voice, the sentiment has no place in both the interpretation and application of a constitution designed precisely to face war in a way that ascribes to democratic principles.
The District of Columbia versus Heller case presents another exemplary scenario where Scalia aired interesting thoughts. In 2008, he wrote the majority opinions that struck down a statute that forbade the registration of handguns and further made the owners of other types of firearms keep them non-functional in their homes. According to him, the law violated the Second Amendment. Specifically, Scalia wrote that everyone was aware of the problem of handgun violence in the United States. He mentioned that the law community was aware of and took seriously the concerns raised by the people who believed that prohibiting handgun ownership could solve the problem. Additionally, the Constitution affords the District of Columbia a variety of tools that could come in handy in combating the handgun problem. For instance, some steps for the relation of handguns were effectuated. According to Scalia, however, the enshrinement of individual constitutional rights takes certain policy options off the table. Among them is the absolute prohibition of firearms owned and used for self-defense in homesteads. Without a doubt, some people were bound to think that the Second Amendment was outmoded in a society where an army was the pride of a nation, where a well-trained police force provided personal security, and where firearm violence was a glaring problem. That was perhaps debatable, but what was not arguable was the fact that it was not the role of the court to pronounce the Second Amendment obsolete.
Finally, Antonin Scalia presented some obligating arguments regarding the Obergefell versus Hodges case in 2015 that made the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in the whole country. Notably, Scalia delivered a scathing dissent, opining that a majority decision was a threat to the American democracy. More specifically, what irked him was the fact that the practice of constitutional revision was by an unelected committee of nine people, always accompanied by an endless praise of liberty. Scalia stated that the practice denied citizens the most paramount right that they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the 1776 revolution: the freedom to govern themselves. As evident in this particular opinion and the other four that precede it, Scalia often had a unique view of various issues that the United States faced. Furthermore, he was among the most active people in safeguarding the American Constitution.
Having looked at some of Scalia’s most significant contributions to the Supreme Court, it is chronologically sound to examine the circumstances surrounding his demise. Before his death, Scalia had gone to the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort 30 miles away from the Mexican border, where he was...