In an article about declining religious freedom in the country, USA Today states,
"Still reeling from the death of its most devout justice, Antonin Scalia, the high court has put preventing discrimination above protecting religion in a series of cases over the past year, from same-sex marriage to abortion and contraception."
While it may or may not be true (I'm not comfortable judging the devoutness of Clarence Thomas vs. Justice Scalia), it misses the point. Scalia did not grant deference to religious freedom simply because he was "devout" but because the Constitution grants it primary importance.
This drives me crazy because they make it seem like justices should all just be making decisions based on personal preference, rather than what the Constitution specifically states.
Scalia was quoted as saying, "If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless."
He also said, "What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Richard Garnett told CNA once that while Scalia's faith personally drove him “it was not the job or the place of a Catholic judge to reach ‘Catholic’ outcomes in cases.” Rather, he focused on interpreting existing law as it was originally intended.
It just annoys me. But it is how much of the country sees the high court and it highlights the importance of Supreme Court selections because they have essentially become our black robed oligarchs who impose their will on us low-life types.