Haven’t had time to read the “anti-life” Dobbs Case ? Read this.
The Supreme Masters of Sophistry: Unable to Admit the Fifth Commandment Exists  by Dr. Tom Droleskey.
Note: Thoughts on The “Supreme Court” and Abortion on Jan. 22, 2022 below are mine- Randy Engel, U.S. Coalition for Life:
What’s the difference between killing a baby in the womb or in a test tube one day before he exists or 15 weeks later?
Is a child “less dead” when killed at six weeks than twenty weeks?
Approx. 90% plus of all abortions in US occur in the first trimester? Add IVF and children conceived in labs by other methods and that number rises to %99.999999999999. Isn’t the human embryo a human being in need of protection? 
What if we get stuck with the 15 weeeks/heart beat criteria? Will the sc ever consider abortion again? Another 50 years? What about the world of abortifacients? With the exception of barrier methods, most “contraceptives “ have abortifacient modes of action. 
Either the sc decision protects ALL unborn babies from destruction to the possible  extent of the natural law and man’s  law or it potentially condemns them all to possible death at the whim of their mothers and fathers, science labs, and/ or the  State.
Abortion like slavery admits of no modification. It’s an all or nothing deal.
This is the message we need to convey to the sc instead of groveling at its feet and debating a 15 week/heartbeat criteria which would be building on a fatal foundation of shifting sand…….
Sounding off. Randy, U.S. Coalition for Life  [1974-?]

I beleive that, of them all, Thomas appears to be a decent Catholic (used to attend the Indult / Motu Mass with Scalia in DC).  He was even in semiinary for a while.  Scalia's son was (is?) an FSSP priest.

Rest are garbage Conciliar "Catholics".

At best, Scalia was double-minded.

http://judaism.is/dishonorable-mentions.html#scalia

Scalia is someone who can be friends with someone despite their politics, it seems. They disagreed on many things on the court, but were very close outside it.

Yeah, anyone with true Catholic sensibilities would spit every time they saw Ginsburg, much less chum around with her after work.

At best, Scalia was double-minded.

Kavanaugh, like Scalia et al., all practice legal Pharisaism. As St. Thomas wrote in Summa Theologica II-II q. 120 a. 1 ad 1:

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas

To follow the letter of the law when it ought not to be followed is sinful.
sequi autem verba legis in quibus non oportet, vitiosum est

It's a common misconception among Catholics that Scalia was the Supreme Court justice who represents Catholic teaching. From "Why Justice Scalia Disagrees with St. Thomas:"

"Aquinas also states several times that when equity demands it, judges should depart from the text to vindicate the natural law."
…
"In no circuмstance is a judge to depart from the text in order to perfect the law, according to Justice Scalia."

This is Phariseeism!

Scalia attended a conservative parish where a Latin Novus Ordo was said.
He also said that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong on some points of law.
His dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges didn't even mention natural law, which would've been a much, much stronger argument than what he gave.

At least Cdl. Burke gets it right when he said in Remaining in the Truth of Christ:

Quote

    Regarding law, in general, there has developed the notion that the law has no relation to objective truth but is constituted by whatever man, usually the judge, decides.²⁸ Such a theory was proposed in my homeland, the United States of America, already in 1897 by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.²⁹

Footnote 29 cites the article:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of Law.

Let us pray hard for him, because he was in a difficult position as Supreme Court justice. He also took a (false?) oath to uphold the atheist, Masonic U.S. Constitution, which doesn't even mention God, let alone His Catholic Church.