This is nothing new, groundbreaking, or particularly insightful but I was reading Hill v. Colorado (2000) for one of my Constitutional Law classes and I stumbled upon this line from the introduction to Justice Scalia’s dissent:
None of these remarkable conclusions should come as a surprise. What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the “ad hoc nullification machine” that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today’s decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts, I dissent.
I offer the above passage as an introduction to Justice Scalia for everyone who was previously unaware of his glorious rhetorical pyrotechnics. Expect more of the same for the next decade or two.