I disagree with most every opinion Scalia writes, but even though those opinions/dissents support some pretty absurd outcomes he definitely has the intellectual prowess to make me think twice (more like three or four times) about my opinion on a certain case.
It's difficult to take your thread seriously with a comment like that. Just what "absurd outcomes" are you referring to? Your opinion is an example of how people tend to throw words around too casually without thinking about their meaning. According to you, most opinions or dissents written by Scalia are absurd
--commonly defined as "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false." I'm failing to understand how a Supreme Court justice that compels you think "three or four times" about your own opinion on a given issue at the same time writes "absurd" opinions/dissents.
Keep a few things in mind: (1) If Scalia is writing a majority opinion, there's at least 4 other justices who agreed with his supposed absurdity. Why all the hate for one justice?; (2) As you go through law school, you'll realize that the bulk of SCOTUS's jurisprudence is not "hot-button" social issues, but fairly mundane, federal statutory problems that people can reasonably disagree on--without it becoming a wedge issue. True, a "conservative" or "liberal" sub-text/ideology may drive some of these opinions, but the consequences of their outcome are simply not as important to the larger American society; (3) You have to admit that Scalia does write some of the most colorful and intellectually rigorous opinions on the bench--something that has consistently frustrated liberals in their attempts to frame anyone of a conservative bent as uneducated & unenlightened; (4) Among those who actually pay attention to the Court's jurisprudence, those who blindly "hate" Scalia come across as the uneducated and unenlightened ones. Hating Scalia is a bandwagon issue for lay people. If Scalia really makes you second guess your opinions--don't be afraid to agree
with them despite the fact that it may not square with your liberal script; (5) Many non-lawyer "intellectuals" don't like Scalia because he is unapologetic--he argues against certain "progressive" ideologies --and he does so forcefully and better than they ever could (i.e. a big F-U to the so-called liberal elite). When they can't match brains, they resort to brawn.
By the way, some opinions that Scalia has either joined in, or has authored that you'd likely agree with include: Crawford v. Washington
, 541 U.S. 36 and Texas v. Johnson
, 491 U.S. 397. Have a look.