Scalia's lecture centered on his "originalist" approach to interpreting the Constitution, a view shared with only one other current Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas. Scalia explained that originalists begin with the text of the Constitution and give it the meaning that it had when it was adopted. He expressed remorse and disappointment at the decline in the popularity of originalism that he has witnessed during the past several decades.
Despite the tense atmosphere leading up to the event, most members of the audience were engaged and considered Scalia a dynamic speaker. "I think it was good for students to come in contact with these viewpoints, even if they don't agree," said Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought Lawrence Douglas, who challenged Scalia during the question-and-answer session. "I thought he was engaging and provocative. I think he was challenging assumptions; he defended his point of view well."
Professor of Political Science Hadley Arkes had anticipated a more confrontational, less respectful audience than he observed. "I was appalled by what was building up to it but reaction was modulated [to an appropriate level during the lecture], even flat," he said.
Emily Silberstein '06, who helped organize protests surrounding the lecture, agreed that the event was worthwhile. "Although I really disagree with the implications of his interpretation, I thought he explained his approach well, and challenged me," she said.
Scalia framed his argument in terms of the lack of a viable alternative to his originalist approach, a void filled by the loose doctrine of the "living Constitution," to which he is vehemently opposed. He stressed the permanent nature of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent certain changes, even if later generations want it," he said. Scalia lamented the generational shift from using legislation to remedy society's problems to petitioning the judicial system. "All you need to be flexible is a legislature and a ballot box," he said.
Scalia went on to challenge the premise of the living Constitution philosophy. "[Proponents of this philosophy] want what a Constitution can provide-rigidity." He explained that advocates for "the right to suicide, abortion rights and the right to homosexual conduct ... want that to be the law coast to coast." Conversely, he argued that originalism permits greater democratic flexibility by leaving controversial decisions to individual states.
Scalia insisted that his approach to constitutional interpretation is unrelated to his political views, although he then "pled guilty" to holding a socially, economically and legally conservative viewpoint. "The beauty of having a text is that you constrain your judges by that text," said Scalia. "What makes you think the living Constitution is always going to lead in the direction of greater freedom?"
After the lecture, Preston Scheiner '04 objected to Scalia's reasoning. "Scalia's refusal to recognize an evolving conception of rights effectively abandons the safeguards which our founding fathers constructed against a tyranny of the majority."
Scalia also claimed that, despite frequent attacks on his philosophy, he has never heard another legitimate approach to constitutional interpretation. "That is the choice," he said. "It's originalism or nothing." Later, he rhetorically asked, "What is your principle? How are you going to control your judges-your conservative judges who want to do nasty, conservative things? Your liberal judges who want to do wild, liberal things?"
Scalia admitted the impossibility of ending the lecture on a "upbeat note," because of his view that the continuing trend of judicial activism is slowly destroying the Constitution. "The Constitution doesn't mean whatever you blessed want it to mean," he concluded.
Many members of the audience seemed to find the question-and-answer period that followed less satisfying than the lecture itself. "I disliked the way that [Scalia] responded to questions posed to him," said Shannon Rush '07. "He was both rude and disrespectful to students and professors alike."
The first question came from Jay Buchanan '07, who asked Scalia whether he would practice stare decisis in situations of longstanding precedent, specifically citing Marbury v. Madison, which, as Scalia said, made "interpreting the Constitution ... a matter of law."
Scalia answered that, in most situations, he would allow precedents to stand. However, he did note that in the controversial case of Roe v. Wade, which established a right to privacy that included abortion, he would overturn the precedent if given the opportunity.
Aaron Hall '06 critiqued Scalia's claim that his opponents have no grounded philosophy of constitutional interpretation. "I think that originalism does not exist," he said. He then explained that some interpretation is unavoidable in every question of constitutionality. Scalia interrupted Hall, challenging him to offer an alternative approach. Hall was unable to explain his opinion to Scalia's satisfaction; Scalia finally interrupted Hall a final time. "I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about," he said.
When asked about his relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney, which some people have suggested will impair his impartiality on an upcoming case involving the vice president, Scalia declined to answer the question, saying that the lecture was not the proper forum in which to address that issue. Throughout his lecture, Scalia also mocked protesters who held signs outside Johnson Chapel suggesting that he recuse himself from the case.
In his introduction of Scalia, President Anthony Marx discussed the College's various interactions with the Supreme Court, reminding students that the diversity enjoyed at the College derives today from recent Supreme Court decisions. Marx informed the audience that President Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986. Scalia was educated at Georgetown University, in Switzerland, and at Harvard Law School.
At the conclusion of the lecture, Marx thanked Scalia for speaking at the College and encouraged students to continue the discourse sparked by the lecture tonight at 9 p.m. in the campus center Frontroom, at a student-organized forum that he will moderate.