Scalia's viewpoint is not new:

it has existed amongst empires for eons.

It is: empower the ruler to whatever end for security and preservation of the [ insert empire's name here] way of life.

It is without honor, virtue, principle.

It has existed amongst rulers of the Muslim world as well. The Usurper Yazid employed it when he sent an army to kill Hussein bin Ali, the beloved grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (saaw). Yazid replaced several of his commanders until he found one who shared his view that preservation of the ruler's power at all cost regardless of the violation of the highest and most noble value. So Yazid's commander led an army to kill one man and took his head back to Yazid. But Yazid's trophy brought shame and debasement upon him and his family for 1000 years whereas as Hussein is revered and loved by millions for 1000 years.

When Czar Peter was defeated in battle by Sultan Sulieman, if Sulieman adhered to Scalia's view, he would have executed him. Instead, he released him, allowing for Peter to return to Russia and build it which in turn centuries later was strong enough to conquer Central Asia and threaten Istanbul.

As well, when Salahudeen was battling King Richard of England and Richard's horse was brought down and Richard was fighting from his feet, Salahudeen sent horses for him to mount. If he adopted Scalia's view, he would have thought of ways to trip Richard so he'd fall to his knees.

Scalia is not new.