On Tuesday, March 4th Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg.

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 1

Justice Antonin Scalia

University President Aaron Podolefsky welcomed the audience and introduced James Staab. Podolefsky pointed out that Central does not have a law school – Justice Scalia came to speak because of Staab’s book on Scalia.

James Staab then introduced Justice Scalia, first providing a biographical sketch which highlighted various legal way points in his career.

Justice Scalia’s speech was titled (in the program) “Constitutional Interpretation”. He spoke with humor (and an obviously practiced manner and voice). I was struck in several instances though by the pointed nature of his humor. He knew which oxes he wanted to “Gore”.

Justice Scalia’s convictions are obviously strongly held. They just don’t appear to always be consistent.

Justice Scalia:

…I belong to a school of interpretation called “originalism”. Uh, sometimes people come up to me, screw up their faces and ask, “Justice Scalia. When did you first become an originalist?” [laughter] Like it’s a terrible disease [laughter]…

…It used to be orthodoxy…

…The Constitution does not change. It means today what it originally meant when the people adopted it. Now, of course, you have to apply some of its provisions to new phenomena. In so far as it applies to existing phenomena, it’s the same. It does not morph…

…I don’t mean to suggest that in the bad old days judges never distorted the Constitution. Of course they did. You’re going to have willful judges with you until the end of time. But in the good old days they had to distort the Constitution the good old fashioned honest way. They lied about it [laughter]…  

[8th Amendment – cruel and unusual punishment – evolution]…Let me repeat that, it’s so beautiful [laughter]. “The evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”. Every day in every way you get better and better. Societies only mature, they never rot [laughter]. Quite obviously that pollyannish attitude was not shared by the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To the contrary, the reason they wrote a Bill of Rights was that they were afraid that some future generation would not be as wise as they were, as virtuous as they were…

…None the less…we are confronted with an evolving Constitution [his view does not hold sway]. When the evolution occurs, and how it occurs, is decided by the Supreme Court…

There are a number of arguments in favor of the “living” Constitution…I get stuck defending a dead Constitution… [laughter]…I could package it better. The enduring “Constitition, how’s that…?

Classes of little kids from grammar school come to the court now and then and repeat…[child like voice] “The Constitution is a living document.” And I have to tell them it’s dead. [laughter]…

A jump ahead:

As the crowd exited Hendricks Hall and spilled out into the Quad, some to go home and others to attend a reception in the Union, they were confronted by the sight of about a dozen student protesters holding signs (and the sound of their chanting). About a dozen other individuals (I assume from the speech audience) stood back and watched them.

Student protesters on the Quad after the speech

More on the speech and the question and answer session in part 3.