Castle Rock v Gonzales is probably one of the worst. After a woman with a protective order against her abusive husband was ignored by the police after he abducted their children sued the police department, Scalia basically ruled that police have no duty to do anything to help anyone. Even in a case where you have a court protective order that says the police "shall arrest" someone who violates the order.
The woman reported her children kidnapped and showed the order to the police and they refused to do anything and said she should just wait and he would probably come back.
The man showed up at the police station a day later with her 3 children, dead.
So now we have the precedent that even in the most extreme and obvious cases, police have absolutely no duty to uphold their oath.
This case was decided 7-2, so clearly it wasn't just Scalia. Generally speaking, when decisions are supermajority, it's because that's what the law and precedent really say. And the precedent that law enforcement doesn't have a "duty to protect" long predates this case, so it's not really surprising.
In general, it's worth keeping in mind that the point of courts is not to decide whether the outcome of the case is ethically or socially desirable. They're there to look at the laws and precedent and figure out how it applies to a given case. If the result is undesirable, it's something for the legislature to fix.
The woman reported her children kidnapped and showed the order to the police and they refused to do anything and said she should just wait and he would probably come back.
The man showed up at the police station a day later with her 3 children, dead.
So now we have the precedent that even in the most extreme and obvious cases, police have absolutely no duty to uphold their oath.
Thanks Scalia.