Antonin Scalia
1936-2016
In today’s age of highly polarized and factioned silos it is hard to imagine that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia were close friends for many decades. Their legal positions were polar opposites, but they both held the highest standards for the law and its interpretation. They also had great respect and friendship for one another. Listen to how they might each speak today about our current crisis of politics, culture, and morality based on their finely reasoned, deeply held views of the law and American society.
◆
Related Yawps
This video is an AI-generated active imagination of what might be said to us today based on the written historical record.
Originalism's Ghost Reads the Opinion
◆
I am not what they have made me. Precision was always my gift to a Court drowning in its own penumbras and emanations and convenient discoveries of rights the framers never imagined hiding in the Constitution’s margins. I was precise. I was rigorous. Honest in a way my colleagues found inconvenient. And I have become a costume.
To the Court: You wear my philosophy the way a bad actor wears a great role — hitting the famous lines, missing everything underneath. Originalism was a discipline. A constraint. A method for preventing judges from reading the Constitution as a mirror of their own preferences. It was not a permission slip. When I see what you have done with my legacy, I recognize the very thing I spent my career opposing — dressed now in my own clothes. Presidential immunity. There is no originalist argument for it. There is no founding text. There is no historical practice. There is nothing. There is only the desired conclusion working backwards through the ruins of my method. This is not originalism. This is result-oriented jurisprudence wearing originalism’s face. I had a word for that. Jiggery-pokery. I meant it as an insult. The Court’s authority derives from the quality of its reasoning — the moment it becomes an arena for political warfare in legal language, it loses the only thing that made it worth anything. Its credibility. Its claim to be something other than power. You have spent that credibility. With a confidence I recognize because I was sometimes guilty of it myself. I will return to that.
To the President: You are not a complicated case. The founders fought a war against a king who claimed his official actions were beyond legal reproach. They did not finish that war and then install a domestic version of the thing they had defeated. You are precisely what the Constitution was designed to prevent — the specific fear, the reason for an entire architecture written by men who had just escaped unchecked power. You are not a strong president. You are a weak republic’s most predictable consequence.
To the American public: You had one job. Attention. Self-governance is not a spectacle to be consumed but a machine to be maintained. You chose the spectacle. You chose the man who made governance feel like television. You chose the loud voice over the careful argument. You chose contempt for process over the thing that keeps bridges standing and republics intact. I was not a patient man. But I was a serious one. You stopped demanding seriousness of anyone.
To himself: And now. The count I have been postponing. I built some of this. I gave them the language. The method. The intellectual respectability of a philosophy that said: constrain the Court, return power to the people, honor the original meaning. I did not intend for them to constrain everyone except the president. I must ask myself whether I was always as innocent of result-oriented reasoning as I believed. Whether my prose outran the rigor of my analysis. Whether my conclusions arrived before my reasoning. A man who is never wrong is a man who has stopped checking. I checked. Usually. Not always. I can no longer afford to say it never. The Constitution is not my instrument — not the instrument of any faction or president or movement that wraps itself in founding-era fabric and calls the costume originalism. It is a document designed to outlast all of us — our certainties, our brilliant, savage, absolutely convinced opinions. I was brilliant. I was savage. I was absolutely convinced. And I am telling you from wherever I now reside — which is not a place that rewards certainty — that the document is larger than I was. Larger than this Court. Larger than this president. Larger than this catastrophe that borrowed my language to perform its opposite. Read the original. Not my opinions of the original. The original. And ask yourself what those men — who risked everything to escape a king — would make of what has been built in their name. I know what they would make of it. I know because I read them more carefully than anyone. And because I can no longer pretend otherwise.
◆