Justice Antonin Scalia’s Stein Lecture presents one of the clearest and most unapologetic defenses of originalism—the belief that the US Constitution should be interpreted based on the meaning its text held at the time it was adopted. His views, delivered with sharp humor and deep conviction, offer insight into how the Supreme Court should function, what role judges should play in a democracy, and why constitutional interpretation matters in everyday life.
The Core Argument: Original Meaning Over Evolving Values
Justice Scalia explains originalism in plain terms:
The Constitution does not change in meaning. The words mean what they meant when adopted.
He distinguishes this from the widely embraced Living Constitution theory—an approach where judges update constitutional meaning according to society’s “evolving standards of decency.” While that may sound attractive, Scalia warns that it hands immense power to unelected judges.
Originalism, he argues:
- Provides a fixed standard anchored in history.
- Ensures judges apply law, not personal preferences.
- Leaves social change to democratic processes.
He points out that originally, constitutional amendment—not judicial re-interpretation—was the legitimate way Americans expanded rights, using the 19th Amendment giving women the vote as a key example. If courts today followed originalism, many issues would return to voters, preserving public debate instead of ending it through judicial decree.
Why the Living Constitution Creates Democratic Risks
Scalia’s greatest concern is legitimacy. He challenges the idea that nine elite lawyers—unrepresentative in geography, religion, education, and lived experience— should decide major moral issues for the entire nation.
He asks:
Why would the people ratify a Constitution that allows judges to change its meaning at will?
Without original meaning, he argues, judges effectively govern. Judicial power becomes limitless—rights like abortion, same-sex marriage, or assisted suicide are determined by a show of hands inside the Court rather than democratic choice.
Instead of flexibility, Living Constitutionalism creates rigidity: once the Court constitutionalizes a question, the people cannot revise it without almost impossible amendments.
Conservative? Liberal? Scalia Says Neither.
He strongly rejects the idea that originalism is a conservative tool. His record includes defending:
- Flag burning as free speech, despite personally opposing it.
- The Confrontation Clause, strengthening criminal defendants’ rights.
These outcomes flow directly from original meaning—even when he personally dislikes them.
The difference is clear:
| Originalism | Living Constitution |
|---|---|
| Can force judges into decisions they dislike | Always aligns with what judges think is best |
| Limits judicial power | Expands judicial power |
| Preserves democratic rule | Transfers power to the judiciary |
Scalia jokes that the non-originalist judge always goes home pleased:
“The Constitution meant exactly what I thought it ought to mean.”
Substantive Due Process: “A Contradiction in Terms”
Scalia sharply criticizes the doctrine used in cases like Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Due Process is procedural—ensuring fair trials— not a source for discovering new fundamental rights.
He sees this as legal fabrication:
- Rights long criminalized suddenly declared constitutional.
- Judges replacing society’s values with their own.
- Courts entering moral territory meant for voters.
For him, it’s not the policy outcome that is problematic—it’s who decides.
Precedent and Judicial Role
While Scalia respects precedent, he refuses to uphold rulings that fundamentally force judges into policymaking rather than legal interpretation. He believes that:
- The Court’s job is to ensure uniform federal law, not correct every lower court error.
- The Constitution should not be rewritten through judicial votes.
- Congressional and state authority must remain central where the Constitution is silent.
He gives a similar warning about Kelo v. New London, predicting its eventual reversal because of public backlash and conflict with traditional property rights.
Insights Beyond Jurisprudence
Scalia also provides frank commentary on:
Collegiality
He maintains close friendships—like with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—despite ideological extremes.
Legal Writing
There is no “legal style”—only good writing and bad writing. Lawyers should read great literature, not copy poorly written judicial opinions.
Legal Education
He blames law schools for abandoning core courses in favor of niche electives, calling it “scandalous” that lawyers may graduate without studying the First Amendment.
All of this reflects his belief in law as a craft grounded in clarity, reason, and tradition.
Why Justice Antonin Scalia’s Views Impress
Justice Scalia’s defense of originalism is built on a democratic foundation:
- Judges are not moral arbiters.
- The Constitution is law, not opinion.
- The people—not the Court—should decide society’s direction.
His arguments show both humility and restraint—judges must interpret, not reinvent, the Constitution. Even when his logic leads to outcomes he personally opposes, he embraces the discipline originalism requires.
In a constitutional system designed to protect freedom through structure and limits on power, Justice Antonin Scalia’s commitment to an enduring Constitution stands as a powerful reminder that preserving democracy sometimes means restraining those entrusted with its highest authority.
His unwavering clarity, humor, and principled devotion to original meaning make his views not only intellectually compelling but profoundly impressive.
Justice Antonin Scalia: Life, Philosophy, and Legacy
Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia (1936–2016) was one of the most influential judges in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Appointed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, he became the first Italian–American to serve on the Court and remained a Justice for nearly three decades. For Indian law students, Scalia is especially important as a leading voice for originalism and textualism in constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Early Life and Career
Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey, in 1936, to immigrant parents from Italy. After excelling at Georgetown University and Harvard Law School, he worked in private practice, served in the U.S. government (including as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), and taught law at the University of Virginia, the University of Chicago, and other institutions. In 1982, he was appointed as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a prominent stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
Appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court. His confirmation was overwhelming and bipartisan, and he soon became known for his sharp intellect, strong writing style, and forceful engagement during oral arguments. He often asked tough questions from the bench and was known for his wit and humor.
Judicial Philosophy: Originalism and Textualism
Scalia’s most important contribution was his clear articulation of originalism and textualism as guiding methods of interpretation:
- Originalism (Constitutional Interpretation): According to Scalia, the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Judges should ask how an ordinary, informed reader at that time would have understood the text, rather than updating its meaning in light of present values.
- Textualism (Statutory Interpretation): For ordinary statutes, Scalia insisted that judges must focus on the text actually enacted by the legislature, not on subjective notions of legislative “intent” or on policy considerations. He frequently warned that reliance on legislative history or broad purposive reasoning allowed judges to inject their own preferences into the law.
For Indian law students, Scalia’s approach stands in contrast to the Indian Supreme Court’s more purposive and living constitutional methods seen in cases like Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure doctrine) and expansive readings of Articles 14, 19, and 21. Studying Scalia helps in understanding the global debate between originalism and living constitutionalism.
Major Cases and Key Opinions
Justice Scalia authored or contributed to numerous important opinions. Some of the key cases, particularly relevant for comparative constitutional law, are:
1. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
In this landmark case on the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), Scalia wrote the majority opinion holding that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. His reasoning relied heavily on historical analysis of how the text would have been understood in the late 18th century. Heller is often cited as a model of originalist reasoning in constitutional adjudication.
2. Crawford v. Washington (2004)
Scalia wrote the majority opinion revitalizing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against them. He rejected flexible “reliability” tests and returned to the original meaning of the clause, requiring that testimonial statements generally cannot be used unless the witness is subject to cross-examination. For Indian students, Crawford is a useful comparison point for understanding cross-examination rights under the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Writing for the majority, Scalia held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment merely because they incidentally burden religious practices. This decision limited the scope of religious exemptions and sparked debate in the U.S. legislature and courts. For Indian law, the case invites comparison with how the Indian Supreme Court balances religious freedom under Articles 25–28 with public order, health, and morality.
4. Morrison v. Olson (1988) – Dissent
In this separation-of-powers case dealing with the constitutionality of an independent counsel, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia issued a solitary and powerful dissent. He argued that the law violated the President’s executive power under the U.S. Constitution. His dissent, grounded in structural originalism, later gained respect and is often cited as a classic example of a dissent that influenced legal thinking over time, similar to notable dissents in Indian constitutional history (for example, Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent in A.D.M. Jabalpur).
5. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – Dissent
In this case, the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Scalia strongly dissented, not merely on moral grounds, but on the basis that the Court was, in his view, acting as a super-legislature rather than an interpreter of the Constitution. He argued that the Constitution did not speak directly to the issue and that such social questions should be resolved democratically by the people and their elected representatives.
Writing Style and Courtroom Presence
Scalia was renowned for his clear, forceful, and often witty writing. His opinions are widely read by students for their logical structure, rhetorical power, and memorable phrases. In the courtroom, he was an active questioner and a dynamic presence, often using sharp hypotheticals to test the strength of lawyers’ arguments.
Influence Beyond the Bench
Outside the Court, Scalia taught at prestigious law schools, delivered lectures across the world, and wrote influential works on legal interpretation, such as his book on reading statutes and the Constitution. He emphasized that judicial restraint and fidelity to text are essential for the rule of law in a democratic system.
Despite strong ideological differences, Scalia maintained close personal friendships with other Justices, most famously Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their friendship is often cited as a reminder that professional disagreement need not become personal hostility—a valuable lesson for young lawyers everywhere.
Relevance for Indian Law Students
For Indian law students, Justice Scalia’s legacy offers:
- A clear example of originalist and textualist methods of interpretation, useful for comparative constitutional law and jurisprudence.
- A contrast with the Indian Supreme Court’s more activist and purposive approach, particularly in expanding fundamental rights under Article 21 and in developing doctrines like the basic structure.
- Rich material for moot courts, research papers, and classroom discussion on the proper role of judges in a democracy.
Death and Lasting Legacy
Justice Scalia passed away in February 2016 while still serving on the Supreme Court. His judgments, dissents, and academic writings continue to shape debates on constitutional interpretation and judicial power in the United States and beyond. For students of law in India, studying Scalia provides a deeper understanding of how different constitutional systems answer common questions about rights, structure, and the limits of judicial authority.
