United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer visited Lubbock Friday evening to discuss their philosophies on interpreting laws and the Constitution of the United States. The two were participating in the Texas Tech School of Law’s Sandra Day O’Connor Distinguished Lecture Series. The moderator of the discussion, New York University Law Professor Arthur R. Miller described the event as a “bull session” between the justices.
One of the first issues they discussed was over the education of law students. Justice Scalia voiced displeasure with the first year of legal education of students, saying that they spend too much time being “suckled on the common law, made back when the law was mainly made by judges.” Scalia said that a judge’s job is to “figure out what the law is according to the Constitution.”
On their differences, Justice Breyer, a Clinton appointee who is most often categorized with the liberal bloc of the court, said that around 40 percent of the time, he and Scalia, currently the longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, are unanimous in their opinions.
When the subject of interpreting and ruling on laws written and enacted by legislatures was posed, the two justices voiced stark differences about how to decide what they mean.
Scalia, a Reagan appointee, said bluntly, “I frankly don’t care what the legislature thought…I am guided by the theorists’ meaning of the words.”
“The only thing we know for sure are the words…but worrying about the intent of Congress? They usually don’t have one,” Scalia replied in his often-acerbic tone.
Breyer takes an entirely different view of the interpretation of statutes imposed by legislators.
“You’ve got to go back and figure out what the legislature meant, and hold them responsible, so the people don’t blame us!” Breyer continued, discussing that finding the intent of those that composed the statutes is necessary to fully pass judgment on their validity.
Scalia also addressed the assigning of certain monikers to his view on American jurisprudence. Often described as a “strict constructionist” on his interpretation of the United States Constitution, Scalia said that that particular designation is wrong, and he is rather, a textualist. The justice elaborated, saying “You can’t run a democratic system without fidelity to the words that make it up.”
The jurists took a few questions from the audience, in addition to their scheduled discussion topics. A question was posed about the law schools which the SCOTUS justices attended having little diversity. On the current Roberts Court, all the justices attended Harvard or Yale Law Schools.
Breyer responded to the question in his familiar jovial tone, saying that “we [the justices] are the appointed. Asking us about this is like getting information about Chicken a la King from the chicken.”
In closing the discussion between two of the nation’s top jurists, an audience member asked what they would have done differently if they were among the framers of the United States Constitution,.
Scalia described the framing of the Constitution as “the birth of political science.” He continued saying “I would change back to what they wrote in some cases…Don’t mess with the Constitution.”
Breyer offered words of praise for the tenure of the Constitution and its applicability today as nothing short of amazing. He summed up his thoughts and answered the question with “not much.”
This is Justice Scalia’s second visit to Lubbock to speak in the O’Connor Distinguished Lecture Series, and Justice Breyer’s first appearance.
KFYO Local News 