Don't get the tl;dr summary of Scalia's dissent; actually read it. Scalia is obnoxious and mean-spirited (and in fine form this time), but he's a really good writer, the fun- to- read kind.
IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.
Ironically, Scalia's language in Windsor and Lawrence before that were what opened the door to federal courts nationwide overturning gay marriage bans:
"The real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status" (Windsor, J. Scalia, dissenting).
“[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” (Lawrence, J. Scalia, dissenting).
Roberts also argued Scalia's own logic back at him in this week's decision upholding the ACA, noting that in 2012 in the decision upholding the requirement to buy health insurance Scalia had stated in his dissent that without the subsidies (for low income insurance buyers), "the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended" because health insurance would be too expensive for low-income taxpayers.
I'm not being partisan but I lost a lot of respect for Scalia when he dissented in a death penalty case and stated (badly paraphrased) that it's essentially ok for the government to make mistakes and execute innocent people because the death penalty served as a valuable deterrent to crime.
I mean really - placing the interests of the state ahead of basic human rights? What could be a more fundamental violation of your rights than to be put to death for a crime you didn't commit?
In a theoretical world where no death penalty existed and was replaced with a life sentence it would at least be possible for someone that was wrongly convicted to be released from prison if exculpatory evidence comes to light.
I think he's often right. But unlike tptacek, I just can't muster any admiration for this dissent. It seemed so petulant, and more grounded in sophistry than law.
Maybe desegregation should have been handled at the state level. It's easy to say "of course the federal government should overrule the states" in cases where the states are obviously wrong, but what about the cases where it's the federal government that's in the wrong? Would standing up for the principle, even in repellent cases like segregation, do more good overall?
IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.