Here's some of Scalia's vindictive nonsense.
The court ends this debate, in an opinion that lacks even a thin veneer of law.
Bush v Gore comes to mind.
A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a Democracy
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers whether they reflect the the view of a particular constituency is not (and should not) be relevant.
Of course that didn't stop Scalia from granting super-citizenship to corporations in an opinion without any basis what so ever in the constitution, or declaring that unlimited quantities of money is protected free speech based on Scalia's tortured logic. The man is a complete hypocrite.
Of course the opinion's showy profundities are profoundly incoherent. The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.’ (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
Scalia even resorts to Hippie punching in a bizarre attempt to discredit the majority opinion. I guess Antonin never met any married Hippies.