Adam Griffin
   Staff Writer

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the greatest and most influential legal minds of the last century.

He is more responsible than any other person for leading the conservative renaissance in constitutional jurisprudence and bringing ideas of originalism and textualism into the forefront of the discussion and debate over the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

He is the greatest advocate for the primacy of the constitution in the post-World War II era.

Originalism is the idea that the Constitution means today what it meant the day it or any of its amendments were ratified as understood by the people who ratified it. Any other mode of interpretation would be invention of law rather than true interpretation, a prerogative of the legislature and the people, not of the Court.

Textualism is the idea that a statute, clause, provision and/or law should be interpreted based as solely as possible on a plain reading of its text.

The death of Justice Scalia on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016 came as a shocking blow to the U.S. and especially the constitutional conservative movement.

His vacant seat, draped in black, leaves large shoes to be filled by his successor. But the news of his passing had barely reached the media before his death was politicized — who would fill his seat and who will be the one to appoint that person? Will it be President Obama or the next President once elected?

Scalia’s death could not have come at a time when the political stakes were any higher, and the void of his voice on the court will be heard for many years to come.

Justice Scalia was known for many things — his influence on legal thought, his hallmark conservative opinions and most notably, or notoriously, for his exceptionally colorful dissents.

But he is likely the greatest dissenter in American history and in America the dissent matters.

Dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia writes of judicial activism that, “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment.’ A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

This idea is certainly in line with the judicial restraint Scalia often preached, believing the Court often went too far by legislating in their rulings.

No institution embodies the importance of the American tradition of dissent better than the Supreme Court.

In the infamous 1857 decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, Justice McLean and Justice Curtis lodged dissents that showed all of America did not hold the racist views that the majority under Chief Justice Taney held and was later demonized for.

Justice John Marshall Harlan is famous for numerous dissents on racial issues, particularly in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, in which he advocated for the colorblind constitution. In fact, his dissent would be a major influence on the Warren Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education opinion that ended segregation.

And then, in the 1926 case of Olmstead v. United States that ruled warrantless wire-tapping as constitutional, Justice Louis Brandeis filed a dissent that would become the majority opinion that overruled Olmstead in Katz v. United States in1967.

These famous dissents, among numerous others, are important in America, not only because it provides an opposing minority viewpoint, but also because the dissent became the majority opinion years later as America’s democratic society evolved on the issue.

Justice Scalia once said, “A good, hard-hitting dissent keeps you honest.”

He recognized the importance of dissent and defeat, which made his victories on the Court all the more impactful.

In an interview with New York Magazine, Justice Scalia voiced his opinions on the importance of dissents when asked, “But as law students, they were taught that the Constitution evolved, right? You got that same message consistently in class, yet you had other ideas.”

He responded by saying, “I am something of a contrarian, I suppose. I feel less comfortable when everybody agrees with me. I say, ‘I better reexamine my position!’ I probably believe that the worst opinions in my court have been unanimous. Because there’s nobody on the other side pointing out all the flaws.”

“Really? So if you had the chance to have eight other justices just like you, would you not want them to be your colleagues?”

“No. Just six.”

“That was a serious question!”

“What I do wish is that we were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we’re doing when we interpret the Constitution.”

Justice Scalia understood the importance of winning a case, but perhaps more importantly, he understood the difficult art of the dissent.

His view of constitutional interpretation, though a major force in legal thought today, much as a result of his efforts, is still the dissenting opinion in today’s legal world.

However, Scalia also left his mark through the majority and voted or authored many landmark decisions that are law today.

In the 2001 Fourth Amendment case of Kyllo v. United States, Scalia wrote the majority opinion that ruled unconstitutional a thermal-imaging technology search used on a private home by law enforcement or government agent without a warrant, and strengthening the meaning of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections in the face of emerging new technology.

In the landmark 2008 Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion that ruled unconstitutional a DC law that restricted handgun access and regulated firearms in the home. This is the seminal case on the books today that upholds the original meaning of the Second Amendment.

In the 2011 case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion that it was a violation of the First Amendment for government to prohibit the sale of violent video games.

And the 2013 Fourth Amendment case, Florida v Jardines, authored by Justice Scalia, again strengthened the Fourth Amendment’s protections by ruling that a narcotics dog sniff at the door of a house with probable cause of growing illegal drugs is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Scalia’s life and career have influenced all levels of American thought, especially American legal thought.

His belief in originalism and textualism in adjudicating the constitution has permeated all levels of the law, leading the famous liberal legal thinker Robert Dworkin to comment on Scalia’s influence that, “we are all originalists now.”

His phrase expresses the fact that with Scalia and his ilk on the Court it has become necessary to at least give original meanings credence in oral argument.

Much as a result of Scalia’s career this mode of interpretation has grown from an unheard dissent echoing from the founding into a thunderous, rich and roaring dissent that may flourish into a majority opinion if the American people turn back to the beliefs that made us into the most prosperous Republic with the longest surviving national written constitution in human history.

Justice Scalia’s voice lives on after his death.