Host Christopher Scalia your father Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the most powerful riders with the Supreme Court opinions, writing dissents with the fingers but this is not a book about that but speeches. Why . Supreme Court Opinions are memorable writing his opinions first for that reason. But his speeches have the same great qualities but the advantages to let more of his personality shine through he was a great performer and played mcbeth in the High School Production and the president of the georgetown theater club but in the way it just doesnt in the opinion. I think they have to follow certain conventions that are asked to turn off the average person if you are not a court follower or law student but we want a collection that to be of interest to the average america american. Like welladjusted normal people . They will need a writeup of an opinion. But one of the advantages of the speeches especially about the law is my dad could explain his approach on interrupted without having to focus on a specific case without bringing in multiple cases that is understandable to anybody not just a law student. There is a section devoted to his approaches to the law and jurisprudence but a lot have nothing to do with the law and readers would be interested in the surprising subjects he touches on. Host certainly my reaction i knew a lot about his views of the law and the law speeches but this has so many wonderful speeches about High School Graduation talking about his catholic faith or so many subjects. There were a couple that surprised me he spoke a couple of times at the National Wild turkey federation. Not what you would normally expect but we included one of his speeches that my father explains how he became interested in hunting and why he loved it as much as he does. I am not a hunter myself but i enjoy that speech because it showed a side of my father i knew a little bit about but i learned more of through the speech. Host but how did you do it . Was there a file cabinet of type speeches . Or did you do any transcribing of audio recordings . We did no audio transcription all speeches, there is one exception but all are one that had sharpened and revise pretty carefully himself. Only a couple were published before that is the great thing of the collection. We have a couple of binders of his speeches from his secretary angela about two binders of 50 speeches each and they were very easy to navigate also with xbox of loose speeches that were different versions. So we had to sort through those which one was a floppy disk that your viewers may not remember the archaic form to store information. And a couple of them that we already had but there were a lot of new speeches. But we were surprised how many great speeches he had. And we knew he spoke not just the law but at commencement addresses so i am aware of that because he spoke at my graduation but the Turkey Hunting speech i didnt know about. Even the quality. The hardest thing we had to do as editors to decide what to not include. There is no filler it is a lot of good material. Going back to the thinking to the general reader that was the cut off. If it was to in the weeds for a general audience we excluded it back. Were there multiple versions of the same speech . My impression is as a stump speech he knew what he wanted to say part of it is the substance about original is him to deliver that and then just talk. I think i know the stop speech you are referring to about original is him and why a disappear your to the living constitution approach to jurisprudence. I heard him deliver that in 2001. But i was looking forward to using a written version. It included a wonderful passion passage to Television Commercial from the 80s where where a prego commercial she is heating up storebought prego pasta sauce he says you use the storebought sauce not homemade . What about oregano . She says its in there. What about the pepper . Its in there. Garlic . Its in there. My dad would say we have that kind of a constitution now. If you want right to an abortio abortion. Its in there. Right to die . Its in there. Anything that is good and true and beautiful was in there. No matter what the text says and having watched a commercial with my father i always love that passage i look forward to finding it but he never actually apparently wrote that speech down. So we do have a version a very different version of it in the collection that he delivered in australia in the early 90s. Instead he worked from a series of notes call the outline that was really just a set of prompts to say what could this possibly mean theres only 50 words than he would photocopy the outline to write notes for any given occasion anybody he should thank lord new ideas popping into his head but there is no reference to the prego Television Commercial on the outline so we were surprised he just knew what he wanted to say so clearly it was easy for him to rip out the basic outline. You were a student at the university of wisconsin . I remember he would go out to universities and almost surely have protesters going to law schools and universities where they are welcomed in the liberals go one way conservatives go another. And going to wisconsin getting some protest . 2001 shortly after the bush versus gore decision he was not terribly popular in Madison Wisconsin and there were protesters out there. It wasnt violent but just a handful of demonstrators holding pictures of hitler and mussolini and my dad. Pretty subdued. Nothing too terrible. So i wonder what would be the case now . And the audience was respectful with pretty intense questions afterwards certainly plenty of people and there was some combative back and forth but my father delivered speeches in hostile territory because he believed he could persuade people and in general they were persuadable even those who disagreed with him he wanted them to hear his ideas unfiltered and that is why he delivered speeches as often as he did and as many as he did. He really believed he could persuade people. At least he could show he was not that caricature. That is always the reaction i heard. Talking to people or reading about them is a fair number of students saying what did you think . They said i didnt agree with him but he made a good argument. To think and actually learn something that caused them to think twice to win over people to say i really didnt understand the argument. He also had, like nobody else in the court that he must to argue law with the set of ideas i remember asking one some opinions to say it sounds like you were going really hard on justice oconnor. We disagree then you tap the gloves and you come out swinging. And then to argue about the law that was the way to do it to grapple with what is the right answer . And often quoted as saying a lot of good people have some very bad ideas. That is how he saw it. And he expected people to give it back. Going back to the boxing analogy but one of the things that is mentioned people know they were good friends. We were also good quality because they helped each other writing opinion by pushing back in the draft explaining how they could improve elements of their argument by different points even though they disagree they would help each other out by pushing back. My father thought with the concept of persuasion it is possible to help one another arrive at the truth not just saying what you want without feedback there has to be some giveandtake. Their friendship was Something Wonderful in washington from the opposite ideological side big issues but they were friends to the end they got together and regulated he always spoke well. But he never derided her and it respected her and she respected him. You just dont see that anymore. It does seem like ideology has taken a hold of everything and they are missing out with encounters and great friendships and in that case and to focus on what they had in common. My dad was born in trenton but they grew up in new york around the same time so that was in common. They both loved opera and had cameo appearances together and their spouses were great friends. My mother is a great cook Justice Ginsburg husband was basically a gourmet chef. They like to eat apparently that was another element of their friendship. So how could you like Justice Ginsburg so much . Just a wonderful person. Especially her use a her views on the law and they can also joke with each other Justice Scalia would say we take that trip to india together because we were on the elephant and all the feminist friends did not like the fact she was sitting behind me. But then Justice Ginsburg said i was told it was redistribution of weight. She got a kick out of that. [laughter] so tell me it is full of wonderful speeches. Tell me about your favorites. It is hard to narrow it down with a handful but obviously those legal speeches are probably the ones that will secure the legacy that there is so much more to him in life that you see so much of that. A couple of my favorites, for the sake of the question we call the arts i didnt know he delivered this speech. With the Juilliard School in new york city. A wellknown school of the arts. But the schools president knew that my father was interested in the opera and new he was a conservative justice offering opinions from new york city. On the one hand my father would fit in but he may challenge the audience a little bit but he reached out to my dad and tells me he was skeptical but he decided to participate. Or other speakers on the panel and opera singer Renee Fleming and composer stephen sondheim. A fantastic group of people. But he wrote the music for west side story and my father was a big fan of the officer. And he took that into a dissent. I wish they had a chance to talk about that during our encounter. That they told me it went over great it was faculty students and artist and law students but to recognize and i am happy to be here this afternoon to have an iq test author or composer or lawyer . It is a brilliant speech like what am i doing here . And why they are important to artists. To create the conditions through contract law. With the wii lovers of the art but the second half of the speech he challenges them to challenge the First Amendment and he says we love the arts but in fact thats not the case and they would not actually be protected. But to that originalist interpretation that phrase met very particular to the founders and it might include im sorry it would include the libretto but not the opera music. But if it was just ugly or poorly written or not protected from my fathers argument correctly so he challenges the audience that we may want these things to be protected under the First Amendment. But that appropriate approach is not to understand to protect everything they like. And to leave those things unprotected. It is a brilliant speech the way he approaches the audience and the context was so fascinating. And 15 minutes they learned a lot of copyright law and to speak very concisely and tells you in a way to understand in a very short time. And was invited to give commencement addresses but the one consistent advice is keep it at 15 minutes. But i do think a lot of his speeches they say a lot and a relatively few pages. I heard him speak at a few commencement addresses. Easy for his audience to understand not just full of platitudes. There was one called platitudes and wisdom he gave the speech at your brothers pauls graduation at langley he may have given it more than once but i thought it was amusing it is not as safe as the enterprise as it used to be because sometimes students make up jokes a few weeks ago the Washington Post published a bingo card the most frequently used graduation platitudes ranging from this is not an end this is the beginning that you are the future leaders of america. The idea was you would take a card to the Graduation Ceremony and then to stand up. And then your principal is probably angry at me for giving next years class this idea but then i heard some speeches that i wanted to yell bingo. But that speech is that things that people say. So it was wonderful graduation. And found the serious points. And i had one last platitude. The future is in your hands. Old bingo. I read this a couple of times and i got a kick out of him yelling bingo. Host there is something about Justice Scalia at so many High School Graduation speeches are full of platitudes so he gives one that makes fun of that and says they are not correct. Is. As dont think with those unprecedented challenges. The reason it is dangerous to demoralize you and prevent you from looking back learning from history and to clean those lessons from the past. And you draw an important lesson never come for major principles and he says think twice about your principles. If they are the same as hitler or lenin then think twice. Make sure those are correct for those that lead you the wrong way. He said i am here to tell you it is much less important how committed you are and what you are committed to. With the less dynamic than the zealot. Movement is not necessarily progress. To follow your conscience is your obligation nobody proposed evil as such neither hitler nor lennon or any others came forward with a proposal that said create an oppressive and evil society. So poking fun at the platitude driving home an important point the neck could not agree more. It is the way to deliver that is significant and memorable. But does that while knocking down. He says that platitude United States is the greatest country in the world i dont mean to contradict this platitude but consider why we believe this. Because i believe this but i want to make sure we believe it for the right reasons. And why we do think so and we are the greatest because the qualities of our people and that governmental system and goes on to elaborate with the bill of rights in the framework of the constitution. And speaking to Law School Classes to talk about what a lawyer does in a relatively concise speech to talk about a compulsive precision with words. And it was a surprise and frequently turns on what is the meaning of a particular word . That is what lawyers do we spend a long time to be precise about words. I think thats a speech he compares lawyers to poets. The job of a lawyer is to remove language of all ambiguity to be as clear as possible. If you have any interest in being a poet get out now because those are at odds. He makes fun of poets a couple of times which is funny to me because i like poetry. He has a great line here is another platitude with that graduation speech with some common legal sayings. And to say a foolish consistency obviously not a legal expression but he says i think a generally sound policy if they leave you alone is not not leaving us alone so you have to analyze that coming back to a different type of writing. With other professions. Tell us about this experience and in 1986 how did that change things in your life and around the house . It helps to remember the most remarkable thing about my family on a daytoday basis there were so many of us. Eight siblings they were never living in the house at the same time but there were a lot of us. That was remarkable. Wit changed in 86 as a federal judge that was a big deal but there wasnt a lot of media attention. But the day he was nominated the next day hanging out with neighbors at the pool that they were talking about me. I think that is probably accurate but it became more public with the sense of the jobs real significance until going through middle school and high school that i understood what my dad was up to and his job and why he was getting attention. Even with all of that. And to the home every night for dinner, he led the family with grace every night at meals. Sometimes i didnt like it because we had to wait longer for dinner because of traffic but now i dont have nearly as many kids that i appreciate the effort he took to make the family a normal family. Especially growing up in the d. C. Area it is hard for parents to be home with their kids and spend time with them i am grateful my father did that. In some ways it was different. It is impressive with washington and there is a lot of evening encounters or travel or trips. Every summer he and my mom would go away to europe for a teaching excursion and the older sibling would take advantage to have a few friends over. But after dinner he would get back to work. I knew he was busy but that time was ours. Host did he do a lot of work at home in the evenings and on the weekends . Be making a did. Weekends he would go into his study. I love that study. Bookshelves, a fireplace he never used but but it always impressed me to read briefs and then to type away on his opinio opinion. Host i would often walk by leaning over the keyboard with the reading chair. I dont remember him ever saying that his study was right by the foyer so sometimes we would hang out to be too loud but he would remind us. Did you ever go up to the court to see arguments or watch them in action . I only saw one oral argument but i really regret that. My wife has a law degree and up until shortly before my dad died when we were married we didnt live appears we did get the chances but i really wish my wife got to see oral arguments. I only saw one. I enjoyed it but should have taken better opportunity but i took that for granted. And then to visit the chambers that is such an impressive building. Arriving in 1986 there were no dull oral arguments with Justice Scalia. So counsel so blue really means black . He would ask a question to be on notice to have a wonderful sense of timing and then to squint and a lot of reasons why the court says they dont want oral arguments on television but that is one of my regrets why the general public could not watch him of those. But he would always enliven the argument to make it more interesting. With those old justices but justice galea thought it was an opportunity to ask the question that somebody ought to answer that there will not be anybody like Justice Scalia. That is my understanding. But his background is a law professor. And brought that professorial demeanor and approach to change oral arguments so now if you dont speak every time somebody thinks there is something wrong with your approach. But it was more subdued. So when he arrived 1986 people said Justice Powell that new guy would ask too many questions. So i said youre not bothered at all he asks too many questions . He said as a law professor to speak for the full hour. It was a little way to say yes but everybody is caught up after a while. And he change the arguments. It is a much more likely exchange because the justices are fully engaged. There are speeches about his catholic faith tell me about one of those speeches. So he valued to put a great emphasis on his speech about religion and he refined and polished these. The christian as a cretin. With the two thomases. The differences between Thomas Jefferson the great founder obviously and thomas moore who is one of my fathers heroes as a man for all season and to leave a deep imprint on my father. But what impressed him was his respect for the law. And it is possible to have both of those things that you have a version of the jefferson bible that he edited the gospels of the new testament to remove references to anything or unbelievable. The jefferson new testament includes death of christ but no resurrection. So my father wanted to use those that st. Thomas moore is a great model for you. Because to impart wisdom it is already wise in christ he regarded with stupidity and we are fools for christ sake and if we are to be easily led or childish instead should not have that, as we become like little children. It was a reminder to a specifically christian audience with a secular environment he thought that was crucial to him he delivered it often. The relationship between the faith and the law that there was some fear he was a theocrat although he takes his religion seriously as a justice is not to impose his religious beliefs or preferences and he gives the example of abortion. Just like no catholic way to cook a hamburger no way to interpret a text or analyze a tradition for to discern the legitimacy of judicial decision to do this honestly and perfectly and how that applies to his attitude to abortion law. I find myself somewhat embarrassed for catholics or other opponents to think we earnestly for my position on row v wade. I told them i deserve no thanks for my position is not virtuous affirmation and with legal analysis regardless of their or my views. To have a personal view of writing about abortion to say yes where it says no that where we forbid. It is my position row v wade for policy preferences then i say the constitution not only permit the banning of abortion but requires it. Those judges have derived those decisions more derivative from that no person shall be deprived life or the birdie or property without due process. However in fact it does not ban abortion anymore than it confers the right. No amount of religious faith or zealous enthusiasm can change that. Going back to the idea just because you like a policy doesnt mean it is defended. That is a good passage to understand his view and the consistent view all along is that the constitution doesnt settle this matter that was my fathers general argument just the living constitution approach. That living constitution approach is that it evolves and without original public meaning that was originally from the what does that mean what does that mean on the senate floor . To make them the arbiters so it is a more modest view for judging it is not the role of the justice for that. He talks about the different audiences with that speech interpreting the constitution i am just one of a hardy group of judges and academics describe two constitutional known as original as him they believe the provisions has a fixed meaning but i find that appealing and i think most people do but in a book like this you dont have Justice Scalia answering questions. Because the hard part to take that asian position or principal brown versus board of education case the Supreme Court strikes down segregation by the equal protection clause. That was added 1868 no state may deny the same congress to allow segregated schools in washington d. C. With the Supreme Court with separate railroad cars. Look at America Today it is inherently unequal. I think Justice Sylvia was equal protection clause forbids Racial Discrimination but the very people who passed it did not think it had that meaning. So then that suggest board of education was made up so that is the debate. Brown v board is particularly important because he doesnt address that in this book but i believe he does in reading the law. With a coauthor bryan garner and he does in that. Im not in originalist myself but i dont have a legal background but he does address that particular argument in another book. I wish i could give you an answer now but with womens suffrage back then nobody understood that to mean that women could vote they thought they had to fight for the amendment to get it that way. But i do know how that applies to brown v board. Host Justice Scalia is a firm advocate for his view you almost wish he was still here to say okay. But what about this . He says he doesnt think original design is perfect original is him is perfect but what that originalist would always arrive at the same conclusion that he and Justice Thomas arrived to approach as the originalist. With the example of heller with the d. C. Gun control case 2008 so even in that case, the minority decision, he wrote the majority but to approach that not as thoroughly and as emphatically but to use those methods he was preaching about. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and it was an interesting situation that my fathers argument i dont remember the precise page number but at the time that subordinate introductory clause refers to a specific event to be familiar and it wasnt the only defense. One of the great things that he did it is hard to explain to our ordinary audience but the notion that you interpret statutes to the text if people say what else would you do . But when he came on the court frequently the justices would say what was the purpose of the statute . So i remember a famous case in the 70s when Congress Passed a law that they may not discriminate nobody can discriminate against race or or gender but there was a question of affirmative action so do you follow the text that says dont discriminate to make the enormous difference with the Supreme Court attention and to think about what does it actually say . There are so many arguments to say what does it actually say . It is a very significant change. The warren court in particular took that approach my fathers attitude he was introducing anything new. And it was always that way until relatively recently. But again that puts responsibility on lawmakers but it also meant my father did not like looking at legislative history when focusing on the intent of the law to the judges but also congressional records. What did they say and conference meetings . What were they trying to hash out . One argument was that people voting on this law were not voting on conference meetings. You knew about the internal discussions. They were voting on what the law actually dead or the proper text. To interpret the law even if it had no actual appearance of the text itself. That was one of the advantages of being a Justice Department lawyer for a number of years before he went on the court because he saw what was happening. It became a sort of game that the Committee Staff would file a report with the build and say this is what this meant. The danger is that it wasnt necessarily a part of the agreement. It was at a sort of to lessen the focus on legislative histo history. I want to thank you for doing a wonderful job of putting together these speeches. Thank you so much is an honor to work on the buck and a pleasure to talk with you about it we are going to go ahead and begin