One of the mose powerful writers of Supreme Court opinions. He wrote a lot of dissents that were real zingers, great for people like me quoting him. But this is not a book about Court Opinions. This is a book about speeches. Why speeches . His Court Opinions or memorable and im ontold by law students and report theyd went to his opinions first for that reason. So crisply written and evocative and powerful. His speech have some of the same quality all the same great qualities that his opinion does but the advantage of the speeches is that he could let more of his personality shine through for one thing. He was a great performer, a little bit of a ham. He had he played mcbeth in a High School Production of that play and was i think the president of georgetown theater club. So that kind of theatrical side shined through in speeches and not Court Opinions. Court opinions have to follow certain conventions that are apt to turn off the average person who is not a court follower or a law student. So we wanted a collection that would be of interest to the layman really, that would be interesting to to the average american and not just the legal nerd. Host Something Like welladjusted normal people who dent spend their time reading Court Opinions. Guest exactly. Normal people arent going to read full opinions. Theyll read a writeup but not the whole thing the speeches, especially ones about the law, my dad could explain his approach to interpreting the constitution and the law uninterrupted, without having to focus on a specific case but bring in multiple cases and we were the coed doctor and i were sure to pick ones that really would be understandable to anybody, not just the law student. Then of course theres just the range of subject matter. Obviously there are plenty of speeches about the law in here and theres section devoted to his defenses of his approaches to the law and his jurisprudence but a lot of the speeches have nothing to do with the law and readers will be interested in the very different and surprising subjects he touches on in the speeches. Host my reaction, i knew about this views on the law and heard she law speeches but this book has so many wonderful speeched about at High School Graduations or talking bit his catholic faith to catholic audiences, talking about so many subjects. One of the real deals of the book. Guest a couple that really surprised me. He spoke a couple of times at the national willed Turkey Federation convention, not really a place you expect to see a Supreme Court justice. But we included a speech from one of those conventions in which my father just explained how he became interested in hunting, why he loved it as much as he does. Im not a hunter myself but i still really enjoyed that speech because it showed a side of my father that i knew a little bit about but learned more about through the speech. Host you did with thats jed whalen, law clerk for Justice Scalia, he is a terrific writer himself and michigan somebody that greatly admired justice schoola. Was there a file cabinet full of speeches or did you go out did you due in transdescribing of audio recordings of speeches . Guest we didnt do any audio transcription. All of the speeches are i should say one exception but all speeches are ones that he had sharpened and revised pretty carefully himself. Only a couple had ever been published before. I think thats one of the great things of the collection. The way see set about this, we got at couple of binders of his speeches from his secretary, angela, and i think two binders with about 50 speeches each, i think. Spanning going back to early 80s through the present, and in addition to those two binders, which were very easy to navigate, we also had a big box of loose speeches, couple of which were just different versions of or redundant versions of what we had in the binders but most of them were fresh ones we had not encountered. So had to sport through the loose speeches and then another box of floppy disked, but an are okayic form of are okay ol way of storing things and there were a lot of new speech so involved a lot of sorting and sifting. But we were surprised by how many great speeches he had. We both knew he spoke a lot, but we knew that he spoke not just about the law. We know he spoke at commencement addresses, at my High School Graduation. So i was aware of that. But again the Turkey Hunting speeched i had not idea. The range was surprising and the consistent quality was surprising. So as editors, i think the hardest thing ed and i had to do was decide not to include. Theres no filner here. Theres a lot of good no filler in here. A lot of good material we couldnt include. Thinking of the general reader. That whats cutoff. If we thought somebody would be too in the weeds for a general audience, we would exclude it. Host were there multiple versions of the same speech because i recall hearing Justice Scalia talk different places, different years, and my impression was that he had sort of a stump speech, sort of knew what he wanted to say, it was a wonderful performer, and a good speechmaker, part of it is the substance but part is the points he would emphasize. Is it the correct your sense he had sort of a speech about originalism and the law and and could go go a lot of places and take that and deliver it and add material and just talk. Guest he delivered i think i know the stump speech youre referring to its a speech he delivered about originalism and why its superior to whats called a living constitution approach to jurisprudence and i heard them deliver that speech, too, in mat disson, wisconsin in 2001, and its one he delivered very often. A stump speech. I was looking forward to finding a written version of that because i loved that speech and included a wonderful passage where he compared the living constitution approach to a Television Commercial from the 1980s where a commercial where somebody is making pasta, heating up storebought pasta sauce and the husband says to his wife, youre using this storebought sauce in not doing it home made . What about the oregano, and the wife says, nate there what about the pep center its in there. The garlic . Asian its in there. And my dad would say we have that kind of constitution now. You want a right to an boortz . Its in there you want a right to die . Its in there. Anything that is good and true and beautiful, its in there. No matter what the text says. And i thought that was being a pop culture junkie myself and having watched the commercial with my father issue always loved that passage. Looking forward to finding but he never actually apparently wrote that speak down. So we have a version of it, very different version of it in the collection. One he delivered in australia any early 90s. But that particular version which he delivered very up a, he never wrote down. Instead he worked from a very clipped series of note hi called the outline. The outline was really just a set of prompts that he would riff off ol and if you dont know the speech, you would look at this outline and think, what could this possibly mean . There are only 50 words on it, some of them are misspelled. And then he would photocopy the outline and write notes on it for any given occasion. So the people he should thank at the speech or new ideas that popped into his head. Unfortunately theres no reference to the prego Television Commercial on the outline. He knew this knew what he wanted to say so clearly, easy for him to riff off the base yuck outline. Host you said you were a studentty university of wisconsin during that time. Guest yes. Host one thing remember about Justice Scalia, was that he would go out to a lot of universities and there would be he would almost surely have a lot another protesters, maybe its gotten worse now than then but even 20 years ago or whatever, i always admired the fact that he would go to law schools and universities where he knew there was going to be some the people who didnt like him and he did it anyway. He was not shy about what he thought he was a brave guy and didnt mind being criticizedded. Its unfortunate the way politicked have gone, people go to places where theyll be welcomed and not to the other liberal god one place, conservative goes another. You actually remember him going to wisconsin and getting some protests or some guest yeah. It was in 2001, shortly after the bush v governor goings so wasnt terribly popular in madison, wisconsin. A handful demonstrators holding pictures of hitler, muse line any and my dad mussolini and my dad. Subdued stuff. And wonder what would be the case now. Im assuming it would be more intense now. That was outside. Inside the lecture hall, the audience was respectful. There were pretty intense questions afterwards. There were certainly plenty of people there who disagreed with him and let him know that and there was some combat it back and fort, not all polite. But my father delivered speeches in whatout might call hostile territory because he was he believed he could persuade people and he believed that people in general were persuadable and open to reason. Even people who disagreed with him. At the very least, he wanted them to hear his ideas unfiltered and thats why he delivered speeches as often as he did and as many speeches as he did. He really believed that he could persuade people. And i think that even if he didnt persuade people to agree with him, he was at least able to show he wasnt the caricature that people had going into this speech or the event. Host thats always the reaction i heard from those speeches, either talking to people or reading about them, is that a fair number of students would be quoted saying, what did you think . They said, i didnt agree with Justice Scalia but he made a really good argument about this they learned something that caused them to think twice about what they thought and that he really could sort of win over people to say, this is a really smart guy act very good point, didnt really understand the argument he was making. He also had a sort of, likenobody else at the court that the law is sort of loved to argue and that the sort of combat of ideas. I remember asking him opposite about he had written some opinions that were sort of critical of Justice Oconnor and people said, you know, sounds like youre going really hard on Justice Oconnor. He said were friends. We disagree on some things but i view this you come out to the middle of the ring and tap gloves and come out swinging. Thats Justice Oconnor didnt see the job exactly that way but his view was that you sort of argued about the law that was the way to do it because thats the way to grapple with what this right answer. You people disagree, you should talk it out. Guest hi is often quoted saying dont attack people, i attack ideas and very good people have some very bad ideas and thats how he saw it. He didnt in his opinions do ad hominem attacks and daytona do that in miss speeches, either, and he expected people to give it back to him. Didnt expect going back to the boxing analogy, he expected people to take their own punches at him, too. Justice ginsburg write this forward to the collection, and one of the things she mentioned is that they people may know they were good friends. They were they also were good colleagues because they helped each other writing their opinions by pushing back at each other in the drafts. Kind of explaining how they could improve an element of their argument by taking into account this point or changing this phrasing here and there. Even though adisagreed they tried to help each other out by pushing back. My father thought that, again, going back to the concept of persuasion, its possible to persuade people and its possible to help one another kind of arrive at the truth of the matter by but not by just saying what you want without any feedback. There had to be some give and take there, and some conversation basically. Host their friendship was one thief wonderful thing inside washington that you dont see much of anymore. They were sort of on the opposite side of ideological sides about a lot of big issues but it never they always were friends in the 1980s and up to the end. They got togetheringly. Justice scalia always spoke well of Justice Ginsburg. Might not join one of her opinions but he was never derideed here. I think he respected her. She respected him. They were friends and unfortunate that you just dont see a lot of that anymore. People who have fundamentally different political or ideological but can nonetheless Work Together and be friend cincinnati does seem like ideology has taken ahold of everything and i think if people let that happen, theyre missing out on encounters with a lot of great people and great friendships. In their case, they focus it on what they had in common and it was an awful lot. They were born in well, my dad was born in trenton but group enough new york about the same time so they had that in common. That was an element to their friendship. And they both loved opera. They had cameo appearses in operas together, and theyre spouses were great friends, too. My mother is a great cook, Justice Ginsburgs husband, marty, was gourmet chef, and Justice Ginsburg my dad both liked to eat so that was another element of their friendship. That it really think kind of just by focusing on those things they had in common, was how the friendship thrived. I think somebody asked my father once, basically, how could you like Justice Ginsburg so much when you disagree about everything . He said, whats there not to like. A wonderful person. Host except her viewed on the law. Guest exactly. Host i saw them together at gw a couple of years ago on the stage and they could also joke with each other. Justice scalia was saying we took that trip to india together. A big problem for ruth because we we are on an elephant and i was on the front and her feminist friend didnt like she was signature behind me and as he finished, she said issue was told it was a matter of the redistribution of weight. Which he got a real kick out of. So they could both joke with each other, and have fun. Tell me, is this book it really is full of wonderful speeches on all kinds of different topics. Tell me some of what your favorites are. Guest well, it is hard to anywhere rove it narrow it down a handful. The legal speeches are probably the ones that we hope will kind of secure his legacy, but theres so much more so much more to him in life, and i think thats the great thing about the collection, you see so much of that. So a couple of my favorites, one of my favorites is one that we have for the sake of this collection we called the arts. This is one of my favorites because the context is fascinating. I didnt know he delivered this speech so i was fascinated when i discovered it. He delivered it at the Juilliard School in new york city, school of very wellknown school of the arts, and it was on the occasion of the schools 100th 100th anniversary. There was a a symposium about the art inside american society, and the students president knew my father was interested in the opera and he knew he was a conservative justice who would offer opinions that wouldnt be heard very often in new york city. And so he thought, on the one hand my father would write in, on the other hand he might challenge the audience a little bit. To hit great credit he reached tout my dad and he says my dad was skeptical at first and was convinced and decided to participate. A part of a fascinating panel. Other speakers on the panel were david mccullough, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, and opera singer exrenee fleming, and broadway come piecer, stevenson im. So pretty stephenson steven sondheim. But steven son im wrote the exterior for west side story and officer cup ski. He worked the words into a Court Opinion and i dont think my father realized that at the time but i wish theyd had a inclines to talk about that during their encounter apparently my father got along with him very well and before the speech, and then at the speech itself, he says it went over great. It was faculty, students, artists and law students from around the city, and my father begin this speech by kind of recognizing how out of place he is, how incongruous his present his presence there is. Let me find the beginning. Its great. Host i remember that one. Guest he said, im happy to by here this afternoon. And to tell you the truth, somewhat surprised to be here. The program reads like an iq test. Which is the following it out of place, diva, author, composer, lawyer. So he begins i think its a brilliant speech because he begins with this selfdep creque self depricating hum your and then he explains why lawyers are important to artist. They create the conditions in which the arts can thrive. For example, through contract law and things like that. So eventually win his audience over and he refers to we lovers of the arts, kind of get them on his side a little bit, and brilliant rhetoric issue think, but that second half of the speech he challenges them by saying, by discuss thing First Amendment, and he says, we lovers of the arts like to believe that all matter of the arts would be protected by the First Amendment burks the freedom of speech. In fact, thats not the indicates. And my father goes on to explain why some of the arts everybody in the room would like, dance, for example, would not actually be protected by the freedom of speech and his argument was that through an onlyist interpretation of the freedom of speech, that phrase meant something particular to founderd didnt include some things. Wouldnt include an opera lib great libretto. Might include would include the lib retto but not include the opera musician. Might not even include the. La brett to, i it was usually and poorly written and not particularly protected. If i remember the argument correctly him challenges the audience by saying we may want all of these things to be protected under the First Amendment but they arent necessarily. The appropriate approach to the constitution isnt to understand it as defending and protecting everything you like. It protects a lot of things you dont like and leaves a lot of things you like unprotected. So i think its just kind of brilliant speech because of the different ways he approaches the audience, and again, the context was so fascinating. Host one of speeches where the people were there for the arts and in 15 minutes learned a lot of copyright law and First Amendment law. He speaks very concisely and tell glued a way you can understand a whole lot of bit of law in a very short time. He says in one of the speeches that he was invited to give a lot of commencement addresses. He would ask people for advice and the one consistent advice he got was keep it to 15 minutes. I dont know whether he did that but i did think a lot of his speeches are concise. They say a lot in a relatively few words or few pages. Guest yeah, especially High School Commencements. He knew he wasnt the real story, it was the students, so wanted to move through it quickly. Heard him speak at commentments and they were always entertaining, easy for his audiences to understand as you mentioned, but still not just full of platitudes, again, challenging. He taught and he challengeed every time he spoke. Host theres a classic on that one, i thought, that i called platitudes and wisdom. It says he gave this speech at your brother, pauls, graduation at Langley High School and you said might have given it more than once, but its i thought its really an amusing. Begins, giving a commencement address is not as safe of an enterprise its used to be. Sometimes the students sit around and make up jokes and he says a few weeks ago the Washington Post published a bingo card containing the moe frequently used graduation latitude, ranging from, this is not end, its a beginning, to, you are the future leaders of america. And then he says, the idea was that you would take a card to the Graduation Ceremony and if at the speaker is platitude enough you can check off a whole string of old chestnuts, the entire class other would then stand up and yell, bingo and then he says, your principal, dr. Manning is, probably angry at me for giving next years class this idea. He says ive heard some speeches where i wanted to yell bingo event without the benefit of a bingo card. And that speech is about the things that speak ared say. This is an unprecedented crisis and he says, no, it isnt. I just thought it was a wonderful Graduation High School graduation speech. Guest and at the end of the speech, by the way hurricane comes week in bingo card idea after the goes through serious points and he said, good luck, and lets see, i had one last platitude around here somewhere. Oh, yes, the future is in your hands. Bingo and i always got i heard him deliver a version of the speech a couple of times and got a kick out of him ending it by yelling bingo. Host something classic about Justice Scalia that so many High School Graduation speeches are full of those platitudes so he goes and gives a graduation speech that makes fun of platitudes and says why theyre not correct. Guest and you mentioned one point about dont think one of his points is do not think youre facing unprecedented challenges. Its usually a matter of degree north kind. So environmental threats. Those have been around a long time. We may be facing a different one now, and he says there that the reason its dangerous to think youre facing an unprecedented challenge is that it will demoralize you a little bit and also it will prevent you from looking back and learning from history. And trying to glean lessons from the past. So even while he is having fun with these platitudes, he is drawing i think really important lessons. Host another one this line abouter in compromise your principles, and he says, you better think twice about your principles. If your principled are the same as hitler or lenin you ought to think twice. Its more important to be sure your principles are correct rather than in a sense blindly following principles that will lead you the wrong way. Guest me a i reed that passage . He says, im here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are than what you are committed to. If i have to choose i will undoubtedly take the less dynamic, indeed even the lazy person, who knows what is right, than the sell zealot in the cause of rare error. Movement is not necessarily progress. More important than your obligation to follow your conscience or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly. Nobody, remember this, nobody ever proposed evil as such. Neither hitler, nor lynnin or any other despot you can name ever came forward with a proposal that lets create a really oppressive and evil society. So again, poking fun at the platitude in a humorous way but then driving home a very serious point pretty clearly. Host i couldnt agree more. Its a way of actually delivering a High School Commencement speech that says something significant and memorable but he does it in the guise of sort of making fun of or knocking down platitudes. Guest this speech includes another he considers the platitude, the United States is the greatest country in the world. And he says, i dont mean to contradict this platitude. But i think we need to consider for a moment what why we believe this. He says, i believe this but i want to make sure we believe it for the right reason, which is kind of class yuck my father. Even in his opinion. And so he goes on to explain why we should think the United States is the greatest country, and he says were the greatest because of the good qualities of our people and because of a governmental system that gives room for those qualities to develop. And he goes on to elaborate on that, basically the constitution, not just the bill of rights but the framework of the constitution. Host a speech after that, too, where he spoke to Law School Classes some somebody is quoted saying she remembered this speech and i thought in that one, too, he talked about what a lawyer does and what lawyer work is, and i thought in a very relatively concise speech. He talked about sort of a compulsive rescission with words, and ive covered the court for a long time, and it was a surprise to me when started. Is that they will spend full hour, major case comes up and frequently turns on what is the meaning of a particular word. And so he makes the point is, thats what lawyers do. We spend a long time trying to be precise about words. Guest i think this is the speech where he compares lawyers to poets, and he says, poets love ambiguity, they love vague language, the job of a lawyer is to remove language of all ambiguity and to be as clear as possible. He says if you have any interest in being a poet, get out now. Those two careers are at odds. He makes fun of poets a couple of times which is funny to me because i like poetry. So, he has a great line when he theres another platitude he examines. A speech called legal kinnard like the graduation speech where he analyzes some common legal situation that he cant stand, and one of them is emersons loaf a foolish consistency if the hobgoblin of little minds. Not a legal word but one he encountered in brief. He says in a generally sound poly to leave poets alone if they leave you alone and goes ton explain. Hes not leaving us alone here i have to analyze it. Comes back to the different type of writing and think can necessary for a lawyer as other professions including in the case poets. Host tell me about your experience as the son of a justice you were in Elementary School when he guest yes. Host win went hope to court in 1986. Guest i was ten years old, yes. Host how did that change thingness your life and around the news. Guest um, well, first, it helped to remember that growing up the most remarkable thing about my family on a daytoday basis is that there where so men of us. I had eight siblings and we never all lived in the house at the same time but there was usually a lot of news the house. That was the most remarkable thing. Always we were already kind of a weird family. An unusual family growing up. What changed in 86 was obviously just he was in the papers more him was a federal judge already and i knew that was kind of a big deal, but he didnt there are there wasnt a lot of Media Attention for that. But the day he was nominated, i remember watching seeing my dad on tv, and i remember the next day hanging out with some neighbors at the pool and noticing that just sensing that people were kind of talking about me, maybe that was just paranoia. I think its probably accurate. So, just it became more public but i didnt really get a sense of how didnt get a sense of the jobs real significance until probably going through middle school and in high school, and then i understood that my dad was up, to what his job was, and really why he was he as the justices were getting attention. And even with all of that, and the eminence of his position, my dad made a point of being home every night for dinner. Led the family in grace before meals every night. I took that for granted growing up. In fact sometimes i didnt like it because it meant we had to wait longer for dinner because of traffic or Something Like that. But now i dont have nearly as many kids as he did and i appreciate the efforts he took to make the family kind of a normal family, and especially growing up in the d. C. Area, it is hard for a lot of parents to be home with their kid and to spend time with their kids. Im grateful my mother did that my father did. That it was different film friends families and but i was pretty similar. Host that is impressive. Its one of the things in a job like that in washington or whatever, you can have 0 lot of evening encounters, a lot of travel, trips and all that. Guest and obviously he went on trips. I mentioned every summer he and my mom would go on a go away to europe or Something Like that for a teaching speaking excursion and my older siblings, never me, would tike advantage of that but having a few friends over, but after dinner he got back to work. I still knew he was busy but that time was always host did do a lot of work at home in the innings and on the weekend . He did. Evening, he would often go into this study, a study in the house, i loved that study. Bookshelves, a fire place never used, decorative fireplace, but the aura of the room always impressed me. He would read briefs in there and later in the career a computer in there and hed type on his opinions. Host so he did a lot of writing ate anymore he ditched would often walk by when the door was open and he would be leaning over the keyboard, looking at the screen or he had another reading chair where he would read through the briefs. Host were the kids on notice, dont go in a certain time and interrupt dad sunny dont remember him ever saying that. It was kind of a given. Sometimes heyed to during forgot, his study was by the foyaire and he would get too loud but we would be upstairs doing our homework or downstairs watching tv, preferably. Host did you ever go to court or see him in action at different places . Guest well, i did hear him give a few speeches. Unfortunately i only saw one oral argument. I was really regret that. My wife has a law degree, and we up until shortly before my dad died, when we were married we never lived up here so didnt get a chance to see them together but i wish my wife got to see oral arguments but i only saw one. I enjoyed it, but i wish i i should have taken better advantage of that opportunity. I took that for granted. Went to the court occasionally and visited his chambers or went to events there, i loved going there, such an impressive building and often great aura. Host i had covered dish actually started covering the court the summer he arrived, in 1986, and everybody said i didnt have a full appreciation he changed the court and changed there were no dull oral argumented when Justice Scalia was there, because even if there was a dull argue; he would ask a question that said, so, counsel, you want us to say the word blue really means black . He would ask a question that sort of puts the lawyers on notice that he wasnt buying whatever they were saying, and it was anyway, he had a wonderful sense of sort of comic timing, and he is very smart guy, and if a lawyer would make an argument that didnt make a lot of sense, he would squint and then, boom, give him a zinger. It was a a lot of reasons why the court says they dont want the oral arguments on television but its one of my regrets is that students and the general public cooperate watch some of those arguments because he theyre interesting to begin with but he always enlivened the argument argue pushed both sides and made it interesting. When i started there were ol justices who would sit there for he hour and listen, but Justice Scalia thought this was sort of opportunity to go in there and ask the question that was on his mind and somebody ought to answer it. So he really enlivened it and its sort of continued on after that. There will not be anybody like Justice Scalia, but the arguments are much more lively than thanks to him. Guest thats my understanding, too, he kind of changed things and brought that his background is as a law professor. A law professor for some time and he kind of brought that demeanor and approach to oral arguments, and did change oral arguments so much to the point now that if you dont speak every time, people think something is wrong with your approach. But, yes, back then it was much more subdued and he brought liveliness to it. That most people participate in now. Host reminds me of jokes at that period was that in when he arrived in 1986, lou is powell, the old virginiaan was there retired the end of the year, people said that Justice Powell thought the knew guy, justice schoolarch asked too many questions. I stopped to see now retired Justice Powell in richmond and i said were you bothered at all that Justice Scalia asked too many questions . He said, he was a law professor. They get to speak nor full hour. Speak for the full hour. Think it was a little bit a way of saying, yes, but everybody caught. He changed the arguments, i think all to good. Its a much more Lively Exchange because of the justices are fully engaged in asking questions. Guest yeah. Host tell me about another theres an awful lot of speeches about subjects about his catholic faith, for example. But a big theme of the book, tell me something about one of those speeches or your thoughts on that . Iing talk about a couple from that section. He really valued or put a great emphasis on his speeches about religion. Probably second only to the speeches he delivered about the law. And he really refined these and polished these. One in particular he delivered very often was the christian as cretan, or as he calledded other times the two thomases. And in that speech he focuses on discusses the differences between thomas jefferson, the great founder, obviously, and st. Thomas moore, one my fathers heroes the year after my parents got married, they traveled around europe a little bit and saw the robert volt play, man for all seasons about thomas moore, and it real jim pressed both of them, and kind of really left a deep imprint on my father throughout his life. And what impressed him about thomas moore was his respect for the law, and but also his devotion to his faith. It was possible to have both of those things. As oppose he contrasted that with thomas jefferson, who had a version of the bible that jefferson bible, he edited the bible. The new toast e testament, the goss tell spots remove any reverences to miraculous or unbelievable so the testament concludeses with the death of chryst and know resurrect. My father uses those two important figures as contrasts and at the delivers a speech often to groups of catholic lawyers and telling them that st. Thomas moore is a great model for you and ill just read the end of this speech. It is the hope of most speakers to impart wisdom, and it has been my hope to impart to those already wise in christ the courage to have their wisdom regarded at stupidity. Are we taught to be cools . No doubt but as st. Tom moss wrote to at the corinthian were fools or christs faith and he said we should not get to even almost we became like little children. So, it was a reminder to a specifically christian audience that they would be seen as peck floor nonchristians, particular peculiar to nonchristians, particularly in secular environment is, obviously. Always that speech was crucial to him and kind of his set of speeches. He delivered that one often. And theres another speech he delivered called faith in judging, which is think really important because it clarifies the relationship between his faith and he law, and i think it will disspell a lot of preconceptions people have of my the fear that he was some sort of theocrat, in this speech he makes clear that although he takes his religion seriously, his job as a lawyer as a justice is not to impose his religious beliefs or policy prefer repses on the law preferences on the law and gives the example of abortion. So, let me read a little bit here. First, he says, just as there is no catholic way to cook a hamburg sooles there is no catholic way to interpret a text, analyze a historical tradition or discern the meaning and legitimacy of prior judicial decisions except, of course to do those things honestly, and perfectly. And he goes on to explain how this applies to his attitude towards abortion law. I find myself somewhat embarrassed, therefore, when catholics or other opponents of abortion come forward to thank me for any pigses concerning dwayne wade roe v. Wade. Mess tell them that decision is not a virtual version of hi belief but the product of lawyerly analysis of constitutional text and tradition. And that of legal analysis have produced the opposite conclusion, i would have had to come out the other way regardless of their or my views concerning abortion. My religious faith gives me a personal view on the right or wrong of abortion but cannot make a text say yes where it in fact says no or a tradition says we permit where in fact it has said, we forbid. If my position on roe v. Wade were a reflect of catholic beliefs and policy preference i would say the constitution not only permit this balancing of abortion but requires it the banning of abortion but requires it. Imaginative judges have derived results much more implausible than that says no Person School be deprived of life, liberty of property without due protest of law. In fact, however, the constitution does not ban abortion any moment it confers the right to abortion and no amount of religious faith or zealous enthusiasm, change that. And going back to the idea of similar to an idea he was presenting in the speech about the arts, that just because you like a policy or dislike a policy doesnt many its defended or rejected explicitly in the constitution. Host another very good im glad you read that. Another very good passage for people to understand his view and his views on the law, particularly something as controversial as abortion because i think his consistent view all along was, constitution doesnt settle this but we ought this is up to each state and the country like this, if were no roe v. Wade, some states would allow abortions and some state would forbid it but not decided by the constitution. Guest that was my fathers general argument in favor of religion and against the living constitution approach to interpretation. He believed that the living constitution approach, which basically argues that the constitution evolves with the morals and standards of the time. So, as opposed to originalism, whereby justices try to interpret the constitution according to its original public meaning, what it meant when it was ratified and similarly textualism is originalism for laws and statute tattoos. What did it mean then . What did people think they were actually voting for on the senate floor . And he believed that the living constitution approach basically allowed justices to seize too much power from voters and from legislators by making them the arbiters of an ages or the countrys morals and standards and values at any given time. So he had kind of a more modest view of judges job in a lot of ways, which is if the law doesnt say something, then the people have to fill in the ban. Its not the role of the justice to do that. Host he does talk about originalism a lot. Its an important idea, one of his favorite ideas. Theres a peach called interpreting the constitution and says, i am one of a small but hearty group of judges and academics in the United States, speaking in central, who subscribe to the principle of constitutional interpretation moan as originalism. Originalists believe that the provisions of the constitution have a fixed meaning which does not change, they mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less. And that is one of those dish find that appealing and i think most people do. I almost sort ouvriere great in a pike like this you dont have Justice Scalia answering questions about some of this because the hard part is whether you take the provision to have a fixed narrow meaning or that its a fixed principle. I know he dealt with thats few times. The brown vs. Board of occasion case, wail way to illustrate. The Supreme Court strikes down School Segregation violates the equal protection clause their equal protection clause was added in 1868 no, state may deny any person to the squall protection of laws, the same Congress Allowed segregated schools in washington, dc. The 1890s, the Supreme Court allowed separate railroad cars, and then 1954 they changed directions and said, no, look at america today. Having separate schools for blacks is inherently unequal. And so i think the hard question is, i think Justice Scalias view was the equal protection clause forbids racial discrimination, always did, always but the very people who passed it didnt think it had that meaning. So that if you said i only had the fixed meaning in the narrow sense of 1868 it would suggest the brown vs. Board of occasion was a madeup new meaning. Guest brown v board particularly important one obviously, he doesnt he doesnt address that in his book but i believe he does in reading the law, a book he worked one with coauthor bryan garner. Think he does i dont im not an originalist myself but i dont have legal brown so i dont know the details but he does address that particular argument in another book. So i wish i could give you an answer now. He gives the example of womens suffrage and argues that they back then, nobody understand that to mean that women could vote. They believed that it meant they had to actually good out and fight for an amendment and win it that way. Host it right sunny dont know how that applyies to brown v. Board. Host its one of those things that Justice Scalia is a firm advocate for his view and almost seems luke you sort of wish he were still their say, okay, but what about this . Guest one thing he says often is that he doesnt think originalism is perfect. He just thought it was the best approach out there. Nor did he think that originalists would always arrive at the same conclusion and gives these speeches examples of instances in which he and Justice Thomas arrive at different ends of an opinion, though both approaching it as originalists. He gives also the example of heller, the d. C. Gun control case from 2008, or host 2008. Guest even in that case, the minority decision also took his he wrote the majority and obviously he took an originalist approach but the minority opinion also approached it i think not as thoroughly and emphatically as originalists but also used some of the methods he had been preaching about iremember that well. The Second Amendment says a wellregulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And Justice Scalias opinion goes back to england and britain and basically says the right to have a gun was always seen as a sort of central right, and Justice Stephens in dissent says look what that the second what about state militias they go back and forth, i think a lot of people thought it was one of those interesting situations where Justice Scalias method or approach had won over the court but didnt actually resolve both of them had different view about the original meaning of that provision. Guest my fathers argument there he discusses it here and unfortunately i dont remember the precise page number but,ey, at the time that subordinate clause was referring to specific event the founders weve have been familiar with and wasnt the only defense but kind of an aspect of many. Host for a lot of lawyers and i think justices of the court, one over the other great things he did, you almost have to sort of hard to explain to an ordinary audience but this whole notion of text that you interpret statutes based on what the text says ump i always thought people say, what else would you do . But it actually was the case when he came on the court, frequently the justices would say, what was the purpose of this statute . And so i remember a famous case from the 1970s, 1964 Congress Passed a law that says may not discriminate. Nobody maidism nate guess felonyee base of their race, sex, gender. In the mid1970s, however there, was the question of affirmative action where companies were saying, were going to every other new hire is going to be an africanamerican to make up for a history so the question is do you follow the text, which says dont discriminate against anybody on race, or do you follow the purpose, and guest thats a great example of the conflict ido think its not. Host i do think its not as discuss order controversial but i think Justice Scalia made a difference of focusing the Supreme Court attention on what does the statute actually say . Lets not think about what they were trying to do. What does it actually say . And there were so many arguments went to where he would basically get the lawyers to say, wait a minute, what does it actually say . So they would focus on the words and really a wonderful very significant change in in the law. Guest yeah. As you know, the warren court in particular took that living constitutionalist approach, and my fathers attitude was that he wasnt introducing anything new with originalism or textualism. He was trying to basically revive those approaches, bring them back, because it had always been that way until relatively recently. Again, that puts a lot of responsibility on lawmakers to craft their laws carefully to be precise with their language. It also meant that my father didnt like looking at what is called legislative history. When focusing on the intent of a law, lawyers and judges would often look to congressional records, what did people say in conference meetings, for example. What were they trying to hash out . One of my fathers arguments against that was that the people voting on the law were voting on conference meetings. Few of them were in the con fresh meetings or knew about the internal discussions. They were voting on what the law actually said, the proper text of the law. So that is what the people were voting on. Thats what the representatives were voting on so thats what the justices should be interpreting and focusing on. He also pointed out that legislative history, once Congressional Staff and congressmen andwomen realize that lawyers and judges were looking at legislative history they could basically doctor it, read a statement to get a specific interpretation in the congressional record so it could be used as legislative history when judges are trying to interpret the law, even if it had no actual appearance in the text itself. Host i think that is one of the advantages he had as being a Justice Department lawyer before he went on the court because he saw that in what was happening. I think he knew that became a game, that the Committee Staff would take a report and file a report with the bill and say, heres what this really meant, and the danger was that it wasnt necessarily part of the agreement. It was sort of and he has done a great i think to lessen the focus on legislative history and its one of the many delightful things in this we have basically run out of time, but i wanted to thank you and ed whalen for doing a wonderful job of putting together these speeches. I think theyre a great read for lawyers and interested people because it talks be the law but he talks bat whole lot other aspects of his life and growing up and makes for a wonderful read. Guest thank you so much. An honor to work on the book and a pleasure talking to you about it. Host thank you, christopher. Historian Leslie Berlin reports on how Silicon Valley became a technological innovation. Share your research on the inner universe and after physics for people in a here hurry. On scene is a collection of unreleased images of africanamerican culture from the New York Times photo archives. Walter isaacson counsel wife of leonardo da vinci. 1482 theres a delegation that goes from florence to milan to the duke of milan led by playwright and poet. It has a architect artist, and all things leonardo was as a musician because he does everything, he loves theater. He has invented Musical Instruments including lira debacle, like a violin. He brings it to milan as a gift. But he kinda wants to stay there. And hes a little bit tired of being just a painter. Hes been blocked on a few paintings so he writes one of the coolest job application letters in history. To the duke of milan. Eleven paragraphs long. The first ten are about engineering and science. He says i can make great weapons of war. He had not done it but he sketched out a lot of them. I can build great buildings and everett rivers. Only in the 11th paragraph when he says, and i can also paint as well as any person. Watch these on our website a big tv. Org. Cspan, where history of folds daily. Cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. Its brought to you by your cable or satellite