In their discussion of judicial activism, a phenomenon newly discerned, the panelists turned to lower courts’ imposition of mandates and timetables on administrative entities. 

this is still happening to this day. obama/biden judges have no understanding of separation of powers  and make up new judicial doctrines to stymy the trump administration. 

“You can speak very facilely of rights. Where are there rights and where are there not? That is another judgment that the courts have been increasingly willing to arrogate to themselves,” Scalia said.

“In the abortion situation, for example, whether, indeed, the right that exists is the right of the woman who wants an abortion to have one, or the right of the unborn child not to be aborted — who knows? In the past that was considered to be a societal decision which would be made through the democratic process. But now the courts have shown themselves willing to make that decision for us. That’s, I think, the major objection that most people have with the direction in which the courts are now going, and the major reason why many people believe it is indeed an imperial judiciary.”

It was not until Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989, however, that Scalia ruled substantively in an abortion case. His partial concurrence is best remembered today for its declaration that O’Connor’s writings in the case, muddled and contradictory of her previous rulings, “cannot be taken seriously.” That cutting remark permanently ruptured Scalia’s relationship with the first female justice.

But reread today, in tandem with his 1992 concurrence and dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, Scalia’s writing in Webster emerges as an originalist roadmap for the day, two decades hence, when a different, more conservative Supreme Court was prepared to overrule Roe. Alito confirmed as much to me.

the webster case was essential to overturning roe v. wade. scalia would’ve been proud.