In the shadow of Brilliance...

I once took a challenge to come up with a list of 10 Americans that I considered to be true intellectuals. Not merely smart people, but people whose brilliance was of the sort that changes the world.

It was a fun (and difficult) excercise. Perhaps I'll eventually post my list, along with a notable columnist's list that first made me consider the exercise.

Anyway, I mention this because on my list I included Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Recently he gave a captivating speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. about the the concept of the "Living Constitution" and how it is destroying our founding document.

Here you will find a transcription of the speech.

I realize that some parts may seem esoteric. But the speech offers a glimpse into the mind of one of the greatest Constitutional Scholars our country has produced. I implore you to take the time to read it (if it helps, he is also a funny guy).

Here are some excerpts:


"...The very next case we announced is a case called BMW verses Bush. Not the Bush you think; this is another Bush. Mr. Bush had bought a BMW, which is a car supposedly, advertised at least as having a superb finish, baked seven times in ovens deep in the Alps, by dwarfs..."

and on a serious note:

"[With the notion of the 'Living Constitution,'] we have arrived[] at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants.

And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years."

Read his full speech. Please. The issue of Supreme Court jurisprudence is one of the few battles in Washington that actually affects the future our our way of life. By comparison, Social Security is a Tonka truck in a sandbox.