In Conversation with Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine

In Conversation with Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine

Fascinating, quotable interview with the jurist who has brought originalism and textualism back to a degree of respectability.

"Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn't change. I mean, the notion that the Constitution should simply, by decree of the Court, mean something that it didn't mean when the people voted for it--frankly, you should ask the other side the question! How did they ever get there?"

"What I do wish is that we were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we're doing when we interpret the Constitution. I mean, that's sort of rudimentary. It's sort of an embarrassment, really, that we're not. But some people think our job is to keep it up to date, give new meaning to whatever phrases it has. And others think it's to give it the meaning the people ratified when they adopted it. Those are quite different views. "

"A lot of stuff that's stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says--Whack! [Pounds his fist.]--STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! ­STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL ... [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one."

"You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn't happen very much anymore. ... What he's doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He's much more successful that way.... He got wilier."

"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil."

On whether it's easier to be close to a colleague who is ideologically different:
"There may be something to that. If you have low expectations, you're not disappointed. When it's somebody who you think is basically on your side on these ideological controversies, and then that person goes over to the dark side, it does make you feel bad."

"My tone is sometimes sharp. But I think sharpness is sometimes needed to demonstrate how much of a departure I believe the thing is. Especially in my dissents. Who do you think I write my dissents for? [Law students.] Exactly. And they will read dissents that are breezy and have some thrust to them. That's who I write for. "