Contrary to the caricature, Scalia has delivered some surprisingly "liberal" opinions over the years. In 1989, three years into his tenure on the High Court, he ruled with the majority that flag burning was a constitutionally protected form of expression. (Centrist O'Connor and liberal John Paul Stevens were among the dissenters.) More recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Scalia joined Stevens in a dissent that went far beyond the majority opinion in arguing for drastic restrictions on executive power to detain terror suspects without due process. (His frequent ideological ally, Thomas, took the most pro-government position in a separate dissent.)

--Antonin Scalia, Judicial Activist

None of them were armed.

None of them resisted arrest, nor did the police even try, it seems.

The police fired a total of at least 50 shots.

One of the shots hit a parked train a couple blocks away.

One of the swine fired thirty-one shots.  From his service pistol.  (Which meant he reloaded, uh, at least twice.)

The sum and substance of Scalia and his jurisprudence is that he can be relied upon to do - or write - whatever he deems to be in the long-term interest of enhancing the power and influence of Corporate America and his dear huntin' buddies in the Repug party.  That includes enhancing the power of organized religion, of which he is a huge supporter.  He usually goes off on one of his tirades in favor of individual rights only when it is clear (a) his vote will not make a difference in the outcome or (b) he needs to throw some meat to the screamers.