The untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia was shocking news. Justice Scalia was one of the finest and most brilliant legal scholars this country has produced, and we had the honor of having him as a justice of the Supreme Court.

It was always great to read his well-articulated and insightful opinions — especially his dissenting opinions — that were sharp and critical.

The words of his opinions will reverberate for many years to come. For example, “I don’t care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier. People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.” (Citizens United v. FEC). Or “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court” (Obergefell v. Hodges). His premature death will be a great loss to this country — particularly during a session of the Supreme Court that will decide on critical cases.

I could not reason out why Justice Scalia adamantly stuck to “textualism and originalism” — to construe the text of the Constitution as written and accept the original meaning of the words as intended by the authors. I feel that line of argument may not be practical, especially with words like, “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. ...” As a textualist, should it be only men, or should it be interpreted according to current times as men and women?

Another eye-rolling moment with Justice Scalia was when he said recently that the Constitution does not provide parity of all the religions in this country despite its saying that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Justice Scalia will be truly missed by one and all.

Arun Kanginakudru

Eagle Creek Drive