I think the general take-away is that Scalia is skeptical of "Big Goverment" and state power. Scale ruled that police needed warrants to put tracking devices on

I think the general take-away is that Scalia is skeptical of "Big Goverment" and state power. Scale ruled that police needed warrants to put tracking devices on vehicles: http://jalopnik.com/antonin-scalia-the-tiny-constable-and-why-cops-need-w-1759071376 http://jalopnik.com/antonin-scalia-the-tiny-constable-and-wh... "Lawyers for the government argued that Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy out on public roads, and therefore affixing a GPS tracking device to someone’s car is not a “search” at all—a search would trigger protections under the Fourth Amendment..." Scalia, who authored the court’s majority opinion, acted in a way that reflected his own strict interpretation of the constitution: in seeking to preserve the Framers’ supposed intent of the Fourth Amendment when it was created, Scalia wondered if the 18th century colonial equivalent of this case would be a “constable” hiding in a suspect’s vehicle." Anywho, it is a pretty dumb move to gloss the opinions/interpretations of Supreme Court Justices by a simple "which side of the spectrum are they on?" analysis. They are usually pretty sophisticated in those respects. You can't just say "Oh they are going to side with Law Enforcement/The States/The Federal Government/The NRA" etc.