Antonin Scalia: Supreme giant who called out the Imperial Judiciary

The dictator judges don’t quit.

Now they want to stop President Trump from building his ballroom and force him to shovel millions to NPR and PBS.

Before that came judicial rulings against his tariffs, migrant deportations, even vaccine policy changes.

The roadblocks dressed in black robes are endless, frustrating Trump to the hilt.

“[Chief] Justice [John] Roberts doesn’t like when I say it, but the judges are really hurting this country,” he said at a recent Cabinet meeting. “And frankly the justices, the Supreme Court has really hurt our country too.”

Ah, for the days of Antonin Scalia, who towered as a Supreme Court justice – all 5 feet 7 of him. His brilliance grasped his branch’s dictatorship, calling it the Imperial Judiciary.

Scalia scaled judicial lore – so much so, even liberal Justice Elena Kagan said before her high court days, “He is the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about law.”

Lewis Powell predicted that four decades ago, saying of his teammate on the bench, “In due time, he will be ranked as one of the great justices on our court.”

Scalia’s years on the Supreme Court ran from 1986 to 2016, when he died at age 79, leaving a legacy of conservative, originalist positions: If the Constitution said it, that’s the way laws should follow. Forget that living-document malarkey.

“My hope is not to be influential,” he said. “It is to be right: to be faithful to my oath, which is to apply the Constitution.”

A bulk of his tenure and stands runs through the superbly researched and written “Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986-2001,” the second book in James Rosen’s trilogy on the man nicknamed Nino.

The Newsmax reporter, whose previous masterpiece was 2008’s “The Strong Man,” on Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell, again digs into the law, especially the intellectual skirmishes among the justices, who number nine.

Those fill serious pages.

As for the fun stuff:

• Nino and his wife, Maureen, had nine children.

“There are so many family events,” he said, “I’ve gotten used to not being home for all of them.”

• One of the high court’s supreme moments came in 2000, when Scalia and four other justices closed the torturous presidential election and clinched George W. Bush’s victory. Four years later, Scalia said at the University of Michigan, “You want to talk about Bush v. Gore. I perceived that. I and my Court owe no apology whatever for Bush v. Gore. We did the right thing. So there!”
• On Sept. 17, 1986, the Senate confirmed Scalia – a President Ronald Reagan choice – unanimously, with two senators skipping the vote. Instead of celebrating, writes Rosen, “The minor imperfection of the 98-0 vote – Why hadn’t it been an A? – bothered the justice in the 21st century. ‘So make it a hundred,’ he told students in 2005.”
• Scalia: “You know, the Supreme Court job is one of the few jobs in the world that all you have to do is this or this.“

Rosen: “With the first this, Scalia gave a thumbs-up; with the second this, he turned it thumbs-down.”

• Jerome Fasano, a priest in McLean, Virginia, where Scalia lived, had fond memories of the justice.

Rosen: “The pastor never forgot the sight, when the two attended a National Italian American Foundation dinner, of Justice Scalia flanked by Joe DiMaggio and Sophia Loren. The justice spent the night talking to his boyhood idol, Joltin’ Joe.

“He is not even looking at Sophia Loren! Fasano thought.”

What of the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized national abortion? That came in 1973, 13 years before Scalia rose to the high court. His death came six years before Roe was overturned.

Rosen: “In Scalia’s eyes, fixed always on the separation of powers, Roe was a simple power grab.”

Scalia: “Whether, indeed, the right that exists is the right of the woman who wants an abortion to have one, or the right of the unborn child not to be aborted – who knows? In the past that was considered to be a societal decision which would be made through the democratic process. But now the courts have shown themselves willing to make that decision for us. That’s, I think, the major objection that most people have with the direction in which the courts are now going, and the major reason why many people believe it is indeed an Imperial Judiciary.”

We don’t know how Scalia would’ve ruled on the gantlet of issues swatting Trump, but at least his takes wouldn’t be boring.

Maybe Rosen can deal with those firestorms in Volume 3.