By David Walter, Special Writer
Hundreds of people packed Princeton University’s largest lecture hall Friday night to hear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia share his views on the proper approach to evaluating U.S. law.
”You can’t judge the validity of a legal philosophy on the basis of whether you like the result it produces in every case. That’s no way to judge,” said Justice Scalia, who came to Princeton to accept the James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service from the university’s American Whig-Cliosophic Society.
According to Justice Scalia’s originalist interpretation, the U.S. Constitution does not serve as a “living document,” rather, the courts are bound by its exact meaning as understood by the men who originally wrote it.
”Interpreting (the Constitution) to mean whatever we think it might mean today — it doesn’t prove anything,” said Justice Scalia, one of the Supreme Court’s leading conservative jurists.
In his speech, Justice Scalia cited examples of when he felt the court overstepped its bounds in order to pursue supposedly noble goals. According to him, actions such as allowing courts to raise state taxes in support of school desegregation create dangerous precedents because they upend the normal restrictions on government.
”We wouldn’t allow the president to do unlimited searches and seizures if that were the only way to end the drug trade. There are simply some things that courts cannot do,” he said. “And if that means that there are some wrongs that courts cannot right, so be it.”
Judges, Justice Scalia said, should not keep stretching to discover “new rights” in the Constitution. The Constitution was meant to evolve through amendments, he argued, not judicial activism.
”Remedy lies with other institutions, other branches, notably Congress,” he said.
While Justice Scalia has become a controversial figure to some since joining the Supreme Court in 1986, he has nevertheless won admiration from many followers of the court for his unique, fiercely defended judicial philosophy and his sense of humor.
This humor was on display Friday, as Justice Scalia’s frequent jokes kept more than 400 audience members engaged throughout the talk. The biggest audience response of the night came during the question-and-and answer session, when Justice Scalia was challenged to justify his 2000 vote in Bush v. Gore to halt the presidential ballot recount in Florida.
”Oh, get over it. It’s eight years ago now,” he said. The crowd responded with a mix of laughs, cheers, and boos as Justice Scalia went on to explain that the ruling was necessary to end the “utter chaos” of the situation.
”By 5 to 4 we decided enough is enough. And I think the vast majority of citizens were grateful that we had done that,” he said.
Some Princeton University students left the speech impressed with Justice Scalia’s words.
”It’s probably one of the most logical judicial philosophies you’ve ever heard. Whether you agree with him or not, you’ve got to respect the intellectual rigor he approaches these issues with,” said Princeton junior Alec Williams, a past president of the Whig-Cliosophic society.
Anthony Bondaracco, a 2007 Princeton graduate back from New York University Law School to hear the speech, thought Justice Scalia a worthy invite.
”I tend to not agree with him too often, but I think he’s a great writer, I always enjoy him, and you know he’s really influential,” he said.
