Associate Justice Antonin Scalia addressed an above-capacity crowd at the McCool Hall Auditorium Thursday night in the third lecture of the Lamar Conerly Honors Lecture Series.350 people listened as Scalia presented his speech, “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Authoritative Expositors of the Moral Law,” while upward to 100 people were turned away due to the lack of seating.
In his speech, Scalia, who’s judicial philosophy is based on interpreting the Constitution in its original meaning and intent, expressed concern at the recent trend of current judges who interpret the constitution as a living body of work, therefore delegating and judging morality.
“Until recently, the meaning of laws was thought to be static or unchanging,” Scalia said, “But with the last half of the twenty-first century, judges, including my court, have invented this notion of a living Constitution, in where the interpretation of the Constitution could change.”
Scalia said that judges have no capacity to declare that the Constitution can take on new meanings, interpretations or legislate morality.
“I am questioning the propriety and the sanity of having value laden decisions made for the entire society by unelected judges,” Scalia said. “There are no scientifically demonstrative right answers to such questions, as opposed to the answers society favors at that time. Even if there were, there would be no reason to believe that law trained professionals could discern between them any better than anyone else. It is fundamentally undemocratic for the Supreme Court to invent new rights just because five of the nine justices agree.”
Scalia says that, rather than the courts, the best determiners of morality are the citizens that the courts represents.
“Only the people can bring about change by amending the Constitution,” Scalia said. “In 1920, when a general agreement was made that women should have the right to vote, the Supreme Court did not simply declare that the equal protection clause in the constitution did not take on a new meaning, rather the people adopted the 19th amendment requiring every state to afford women the right to vote.”
Scalia says that other potential Supreme Court justices who share his philosophy of originalist interpretation of the Constitution would probably not pass a Senate confirmation vote in this current era of politics.
“I was confirmed by a 98-0 vote in the Senate,” Scalia said. “Now, I probably wouldn’t even receive 60 votes.”
After his speech, Scalia held a brief question and answer session where he addressed audience members’ questions and briefly reflected back on some of his own decisions in the Supreme Court.
“I think one of the decisions that we’ve reached that I’m proud of would have to be the overruling of a prior court decisions on the confrontation clause that brought it back to the meaning that it had at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted,” Scalia said. “This allows the accused in court to see who is accusing them, and also prevents hearsay from reaching the courts.”
Lyn Hicks, a senior majoring in electrical engineering, says she was very entertained by Scalia’s speech.
“I was very impressed,” Hicks said. “He covered more material in the short time than I thought was possible. He covered a lot of ground insightfully, not shallowly.”
Hicks said Scalia’s presentation built on his reputation as a sharp intellectual.
Chris Hollomon, a senior majoring in business administration, says that he was blown away by Scalia’s abilities as an orator.
“He is probably the most well spoken government official that I have ever heard,”Hollomon said. “We need a president who can communicate and answer questions as well as Scalia did. If we had one like him, we might possibly have less problems here or abroad.