Ed M. Vitagliano

AFA vice president

May 2016 – Christians, social conservatives, and constitutionalists admired Antonin Scalia and were saddened by his passing – not only from this life but also from his conservative role on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Scalia died at age 79 in February.

Appointed to the high court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, the first justice of Italian-American descent would become a conservative icon primarily due to his unflinching stand for a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

As a result, even in death, Scalia remains controversial. The battle to name a nominee to follow this giant of conservative jurisprudence may very well be a contentious affair that could influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

As it turns out, Antonin Scalia was more than just a man with a magnificent and razor-sharp mind. He was also a man of heart, manifesting a love and compassion that made him beloved even by those who disagreed with his constitutional views.

Virtue and charm
The Bible says, “When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7). Such was the case with Scalia.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his polar opposite in terms of judicial philosophy, called Scalia “an absolutely charming man, and he can make even the most sober judge laugh.”

Calling Scalia by his nickname, “Nino,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in National Review, “Nino sparkled with enthusiasm, energy, sense of humor, insight, and seriousness of purpose. … We were good friends.”

How is it that someone so combative over ideas could win over the hearts of those with whom he fought? Over and over again, those who disagreed with Scalia ideologically agreed on one thing: They loved Antonin Scalia as a person.

“It was part of Nino’s virtue and charm – and his Christian outlook – that he could find something redeeming and likeable in just about everyone he met, regardless of politics,” said Hadley Arkes, the Ney Professor Emeritus at Amherst College.

Jonathan Last, an author and a senior writer at Weekly Standard, said Scalia’s great affection for others was always evident – including for judicial opponents like Ginsburg. “He called her ‘Ruthie,’” Last said, “and spoke of her not the way you describe a close work colleague – not even the way you talk about a good friend – but the way a man talks about a beloved sister.”

Last recounted the first time he saw Scalia in person. At a college lecture, Scalia spoke on the subject of originalism and then for two hours answered questions. Last said it was clear that the justice loved not only the law but also the people he was addressing.

“It was like watching Ted Williams take batting practice,” he said. “Except that in addition to possessing an intellect that was truly intimidating, Scalia was also jovial and good natured.”

At one point, a well-known campus radical rose to query the justice, and in response, Scalia “reduced her – literally – to tears.” The young woman ran crying toward the exit.

Instead of gloating, Scalia’s response amazed Last. “What made the biggest impression on me that night was Scalia’s genuine compassion,” he said. “He called after her and asked her to come back to the microphone so they could talk some more. She didn’t. But I was struck that a justice of the Supreme Court would be willing to extend a conversation, in public, with a hysterical 20-year-old, on a subject about which she knew next to nothing. Then, it seemed to me the most intellectually generous act I’d ever seen. It still does.”

A fierce intellect
These characterizations of Scalia as a man with a loving heart should not detract from Scalia as a man of penetrating and fierce intellect.

Andrew Ferguson, a senior editor at Weekly Standard, remembered one of Scalia’s brilliant dissents – and the media aftermath. “The Supreme Court had issued a sweeping decision, and Scalia had written a stinging dissent,” he said. “He was always doing this, according to the popular press. For 30 years the Court swept, Scalia stung.”

Scalia’s dissents were usually some variation of “stinging” or “blistering” or “scathing” or something similar, Ferguson said – but not without good reason.

“Scalia could dismember an argument so quickly and thoroughly,” Ferguson said, “that a wide-eyed reporter, arriving late to the scene and finding the field littered with broken fallacies and red herrings, could only assume that violence had been done.”

Defending the Constitution
However, the justice was not simply a knight in search of a windmill to spear. He was a champion compelled to combat ideas which he believed were undermining the Constitution.

Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, said Scalia “feared that the abandonment of authentic constitutional principles by judges who feel it is their prerogative to make laws and rule the people, in the name of ‘making the Constitution a living, breathing document,’ would doom the nation.”

It was this combination of brilliance and ferocity in defense of the Republic and its founding document that impressed even his opponents.

“Antonin Scalia was my hero,” said Jamal Greene in a New York Times tribute. Although ideologically on the opposite end of the spectrum, Greene said, “I have looked up to him for years.”

By the time Scalia came on the national scene, Greene said the idea that the law should look to the original intent of the founders was everywhere in retreat. Scalia was a pivotal figure in breathing new life into a near-moribund legal ideal.

“Justice Scalia was among the first to argue that constitutional interpreters should not be interested in the intentions of the framers but in the original meaning of the words they used,” he said.

It was the force of Scalia’s arguments and his talent for making his ideas understood that so impressed Greene.

“We will study his opinions, yes, but we will also study his speeches, his sound bites, his turns of phrase, and his travel schedule,” said the liberal Greene. “And often, when our colleagues aren’t listening, we will say to ourselves, ‘The guy was good.’ May he rest in peace.”

On bended knee
Perhaps the most poignant tribute came from Scalia’s son, Paul. The Scalia family vacationed every summer at the beach. As devout Catholics, even on vacation, the family was at Sunday Mass.

The convenience of the church location – an open-air structure on the beach – made it difficult to remain reverent, Paul explained. Even worse, because the large family was always late, there were never seats left. The Scalias all had to stand in the sand outside the structure.

One Sunday, the younger Scalia remembered, when it came time to receive the Eucharist, the kids remained standing while the parents knelt. “In the sand. Without support. Or cushions,” Paul said.

When they got back to the cottage, Scalia corrected his children for their lack of respect. He explained to them that reverence for God in receiving the Eucharist was always proper – even at the beach. The lesson made a deep impression on Paul Scalia, who would later become a Catholic priest.

Paul said the message to him was clear. “Although God has hidden things from the wise and the learned, He has revealed them to the childlike (Matthew 11:25),” he said. “In his work and in many other areas, my dad was wise and learned. But in turning to the things of God, he knew he needed to become childlike. And kneel in the sand.”

It is a critical moment for America, and the nation has lost a true champion. Perhaps like no other time in our country’s history, we need more men and women in political leadership who are humble enough that they are willing to kneel in the sand before the God our founders revered.