In agreeing with Arizona's SB 1070, Scalia was very Scalia

Antonin Scalia, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice who died on Saturday, had a reputation for full-throated and sometimes scalding dissents.

The high court’s recent historic progressive decisions — on Obamacare and on marriage rights — provided openings for him to deploy rhetoric that some said could stray into campaign-speech territory. If they didn't have a dog in the fight, some would hope Scalia ended up on the losing end, just for entertainment purposes.

Another case that allowed Scalia to go all Scalia as he disagreed with the majority was Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, the hard-line 2010 immigration law.

In a 2012 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled constitutional the most controversial portion of the law, a requirement that law enforcement make a reasonable effort to determine the immigration status of individuals they come in contact with and have reason to suspect are in the country illegally. At the same time, it struck down three key parts of the law, which required migrants to carry papers, allowed warrant-less arrests under some circumstances and prohibited undocumented immigrants from being employed in the state.

Justice Antonin Scalia, remembered in Arizona as sharp, witty and 'a true patriot'

Even though they lost on these points, the conservative Arizona lawmakers who passed SB 1070 and then-Gov. Jan Brewer who signed it, found in Scalia an ally on hard-line immigration policy. He later remarked on the decision on Fox News Channel.

In his dissent, Scalia wrote “to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

Scalia ended his dissent, stating:

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

Five notable dissents from Justice Antonin Scalia