The late Supreme Court Justice, who died in his sleep while on a Texas hunting trip, dissented along with Clarence Thomas against Casey Martin in his battle with the PGA Tour over cart usage. The rest of the court voted for Martin.
That's right millennials, the PGA Tour sued a handicapped-at-birth guy to stop him from taking a cart, even though he could barely walk. Charity is not always at the heart of Tim Finchem.
Anyway, Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent was an entertaingly crafted piece of writing, even if it was the questionable view at the time or in hindsight:
Having concluded that dispensing with the walking rule would not violate federal-Platonic "golf" (and, implicitly, that it is federal-Platonic golf, and no other, that the PGA TOUR can insist upon) the Court moves on to the second part of its test: the competitive effects of waiving this nonessential rule. In this part of its analysis, the Court first finds that the effects of the change are "mitigated" by the fact that in the game of golf weather, a "lucky bounce," and "pure chance" provide different conditions for each competitor and individual ability may not "be the sole determinant of the outcome." Ante, at 25. I guess that is why those who follow professional golfing consider Jack Nicklaus the luckiest golfer of all time, only to be challenged of late by the phenomenal luck of Tiger Woods. The Court's empiricism is unpersuasive. "Pure chance" is randomly distributed among the players, but allowing respondent to use a cart gives him a "lucky" break every time he plays. Pure chance also only matters at the margin--a stroke here or there; the cart substantially improves this respondent's competitive prospects beyond a couple of strokes. But even granting that there are significant nonhuman variables affecting competition, that fact does not justify adding another variable that always favors one player.