[Senate Document 114-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ANTONIN SCALIA
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Antonin Scalia
S. Doc. 114-12
ANTONIN SCALIA
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2017
Compiled under the direction
of the
Joint Committee on Printing
Order for Printing
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Justice
Scalia for the Record until March 10, 2016, and that all
tributes be printed as a Senate document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
FOREWORD
On October 5, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee held
a hearing for the purpose of ``Considering the Role of
Judges Under the Constitution of the United States.''
Justice Antonin Scalia, who at that point had served on
the Court for 25 years, was invited to testify. He began
his remarks by telling the committee how he often asks law
students what they think makes America a free country.
Usually, he indicated, the response will be one of the
``marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights.'' He then
said this:
But then I tell them, ``If you think a bill of rights is
what sets us apart, you're crazy.'' Every banana republic
in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for
life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the
former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally.
It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of
the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of
the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and
anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the
government will be called to account. Whoa, that is
wonderful stuff!
Of course, just words on paper. What our Framers would
have called a ``parchment guarantee.'' And the reason is
that the real constitution of the Soviet Union--you think
of the word ``constitution''--it doesn't mean a ``bill''
it means ``structure'': say a person has a sound
constitution [you mean] he has a sound structure. The real
constitution of the Soviet Union--which our Framers
debated [our constitution] that whole summer in
Philadelphia in 1787, they didn't talk about the Bill of
Rights, that was an afterthought wasn't it--that
constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the
centralization of power in one person or in one party. And
when that happens, the game is over, the Bill of Rights is
just what our Framers would call a ``parchment
guarantee.''
So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is
the structure of our government.
Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the defense and
preservation of that structure. He understood the role of
the judiciary and the role of the elected branches, and
the need to respect the differences between and among
them. He understood how the division of power among the
branches preserved liberty, and how encroachments or
usurpations by one branch of another's prerogatives
threatened liberty.
All Americans owe Justice Scalia a tremendous debt of
gratitude for his life of committed public service.
Through 30 years of service on the Supreme Court he was
always guided by a belief that Justices should determine
what the language of our Constitution and laws require and
render a decision based on those requirements, not their
own preferences.
Legislators, along with the constituents who elected
them, should be particularly grateful for his recognition
of, and commitment to, the principle that our system
assigns the lawmaking power to the legislature, not the
judiciary.
This volume is a collection of tributes Members of
Congress gave to Justice Scalia following his tragic and
premature death last year. It is hoped the remarks herein
convey our deep sense of gratitude for the life, work, and
legacy of Justice Scalia.
Senator Roy Blunt Senator Chuck Grassley
Chairman Chairman
Committee on Rules and
Administration Committee on the
Judiciary
CONTENTS
Order for Printing....................................
iii
Foreword..............................................
v
Biography.............................................
ix
Proceedings in the Senate:
Tributes by Senators:
Bennet, Michael F., of Colorado................
26
Blumenthal, Richard, of Connecticut............
22
Blunt, Roy, of Missouri........................
19
Boxer, Barbara, of California..................
25
Cardin, Benjamin L., of Maryland...............
22, 51
Casey, Robert P., Jr., of Pennsylvania.........
35
Cochran, Thad, of Mississippi..................
26
Cornyn, John, of Texas
...............................................
....
15, 19, 27, 51
Cotton, Tom, of Arkansas.......................
33
Cruz, Ted, of Texas............................
46
Donnelly, Joe, of Indiana......................
26
Durbin, Richard J., of Illinois................
12, 24
Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming...................
18
Fischer, Deb, of Nebraska......................
31
Franken, Al, of Minnesota......................
21
Grassley, Chuck, of Iowa.......................
7, 49
Hatch, Orrin G., of Utah
...............................................
.......
12, 25, 49
Heller, Dean, of Nevada........................
45
Inhofe, James M., of Oklahoma..................
42
Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia....................
26
Klobuchar, Amy, of Minnesota...................
17
Lankford, James, of Oklahoma...................
33
Leahy, Patrick J., of Vermont..................
11
Lee, Mike, of Utah.............................
21
McConnell, Mitch, of Kentucky
........................................
3, 11, 22, 25
Murray, Patty, of Washington...................
17
Reid, Harry, of Nevada.........................
6
Rounds, Mike, of South Dakota..................
50
Rubio, Marco, of Florida.......................
28
Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama.....................
36
Vitter, David, of Louisiana....................
34, 43
Warner, Mark R., of Virginia...................
25
Wicker, Roger F., of Mississippi...............
44
Proceedings in the House of Representatives:
Tributes by Representatives:
Comstock, Barbara, of Virginia
............................................
55, 65, 68
DeSantis, Ron, of Florida......................
65
Fortenberry, Jeff, of Nebraska.................
60
Gohmert, Louie, of Texas
...............................................
.......
68, 78, 79
Goodlatte, Bob, of Virginia....................
57
Jackson Lee, Sheila, of Texas..................
79, 80
Jeffries, Hakeem S., of New York...............
79
King, Peter T., of New York....................
61
King, Steve, of Iowa...........................
80, 81
LaMalfa, Doug, of California...................
53
McCarthy, Kevin, of California.................
53, 54
Roskam, Peter J., of Illinois..................
63
Rothfus, Keith J., of Pennsylvania.............
67
Sessions, Pete, of Texas.......................
77
Speier, Jackie, of California..................
80
Wagner, Ann, of Missouri.......................
59
Walker, Mark, of North Carolina................
62
Wilson, Joe, of South Carolina.................
54
Memorial Services
Supreme Court......................................
85
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception.......................................
87
Mayflower Hotel....................................
101
BIOGRAPHY
Antonin Gregory Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in
Trenton, NJ, the only child of Eugene and Catherine
Scalia. His father, who had emigrated from Sicily as a
young man, was a professor of Romance languages at
Brooklyn College. His mother was a schoolteacher and one
of seven children of Italian immigrants. When Antonin was
a child, his family moved to Queens, where he played
stickball, rooted for the Yankees, and joined the Boy
Scouts. He was valedictorian of the Xavier High class of
1953 and valedictorian of the Georgetown University class
of 1957. He attended Harvard Law School, where he earned
high honors and was a notes editor for the law review.
The smartest thing Antonin Scalia did at Cambridge was
go on a blind date with a Radcliffe undergraduate named
Maureen McCarthy, whom he would marry on September 9,
1960. As a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960
to 1961, Antonin Scalia studied in Europe with Maureen
before settling in Cleveland, where he worked at the law
firm of Jones Day from 1961 to 1967. Antonin Scalia left
private practice to become a professor of law at the
University of Virginia from 1967 to 1971, and then served
as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications
Policy from 1971 to 1972, as Chairman of the
Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972
to 1974, and as Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Legal Counsel from 1974 to 1977.
He returned to academic life in 1977 when he joined the
faculty at the University of Chicago. He was also visiting
professor of law at both Georgetown and Stanford, and was
chairman of the American Bar Association's section of
administrative law from 1981 to 1982 and its conference of
section chairmen from 1982 to 1983.
In 1982 President Reagan chose Antonin Scalia to join
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, and 4 years later nominated him to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Antonin Scalia was confirmed
by the Senate, 98 to 0, and took his seat on the bench on
September 26, 1986. He served the court for nearly 30
years before his death on February 13, 2016.
Antonin Scalia loved music, hunting, and old movies. He
was a devout Catholic, a proud American, a devoted father,
and a loving husband. He is survived by Maureen--his wife
of 55 years--their 9 children, and their 36 grandchildren.
?
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
FOR
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
ANTONIN SCALIA
Proceedings in the Senate
Monday, February 22, 2016
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following
prayer:
Let us pray.
Our Father in Heaven, Your counsel stands firm and sure.
Fashion the hearts of our lawmakers so that they desire to
do Your will. Today, as we remember George Washington's
farewell address, may we not forget that our Nation is not
strong merely because of military might, but that
integrity and righteousness are also critical to national
security. Lord, keep our Senators from forgetting Your
promise to surround the righteous with the shield of Your
Divine favor. Help us all to continue to find hope in Your
loving kindness, for we trust in Your Holy Name. May we
take refuge in the unfolding of Your loving providence.
And, Lord, thank You for the life and integrity of
Justice Antonin Scalia.
We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.
MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate observe a moment of silence in memory of
Justice Antonin Scalia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(Moment of silence.)
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to say a few
words about a towering figure of the Supreme Court who
will be missed by many. Antonin Scalia was literally one
of a kind. In the evenings, he loved nothing more than a
night at the opera house. During the day, he often starred
in an opus of his own.
For most watchers of the Court, even many of Scalia's
most ardent critics, the work he produced was brilliant,
entertaining, and unmissable. Words had meaning to him. He
used them to dissect and refute, to amuse and beguile, to
challenge and persuade. Even when his arguments didn't
carry the day, his dissents often gathered the most
attention anyway.
President Obama said that Justice Scalia will be
``remembered as one of the most consequential judges and
thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.'' I certainly
agree. It is amazing that someone who never served as
Chief Justice could make such an indelible impact on our
country. He is, in my view, in league with Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and John Marshall Harlan as
perhaps the most significant Associate Justices ever.
I first met him when we both served in the Ford
administration's Justice Department. I was fortunate, as a
young man, to be invited to staff meetings that featured
some of the most influential conservative judicial minds
of the time. Robert Bork was there. He was the Solicitor
General. Larry Silberman was there. He was the Deputy
Attorney General. Everyone in the Department agreed on two
things: One, Antonin Scalia was the funniest lawyer on the
staff; and, two, he was the brightest.
Antonin Scalia was usually the smartest guy in whatever
room he chose to walk into. Of course, he didn't need to
tell you he was the smartest. You just knew it.
I came back to Washington a few years later as a Senator
on the Judiciary Committee, serving there when Antonin
Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court. His views on
the Court were strong, and they were clear. Some tried to
caricature his judicial conservatism as something it was
not. It was not political conservatism.
Justice Scalia's aim was to follow the Constitution
wherever it took him, even if he disagreed politically
with the outcome. We saw that when he voted to uphold the
constitutional right of protesters to burn the American
flag. He upheld their right to do that. This is what he
said: ``If it was up to me, I would have thrown this
bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail, but it was
not up to me.''
It was up to the Constitution.
``If you had to pick ... one freedom ... that is the
most essential to the functioning of a democracy, it has
to be freedom of speech,'' Antonin Scalia once said. He
went on:
Because democracy means persuading one another. And
then, ultimately, voting. ... You can't run such a system
if there is a muzzling of one point of view. So it's a
fundamental freedom in a democracy, much more necessary in
a democracy than in any other system of government. I
guess you can run an effective monarchy without freedom of
speech. I don't think you can run an effective democracy
without it.
Justice Scalia defended the First Amendment rights of
those who would express themselves by burning our flag
just as he defended the First Amendment rights of
Americans who wished to express themselves by
participating in the change-making process of our
democracy: the right to speak one's mind, the right to
associate freely, the rights of citizens, groups, and
candidates to participate in the political process.
Numerous cases involving these kinds of essential First
Amendment principles came before the Court during his
tenure. I filed nearly a dozen amicus curiae briefs in
related Supreme Court cases in recent years, and I was the
lead plaintiff in a case that challenged the campaign
finance laws back in 2002.
These core First Amendment freedoms may not always be
popular with some politicians who would rather control the
amount, nature, and timing of speech that is critical of
them, but Justice Scalia recognized that protecting the
citizenry from efforts by the government to control their
speech about issues of public concern was the very purpose
of the First Amendment. He knew that such speech--
political speech--lay at its very core.
It is a constitutional outlook shared by many, including
the members of an organization such as the Federalist
Society. You could always count on him attending the
Society's annual dinner. One of his five sons, Paul, is a
priest, and he always gave an opening prayer. This is what
Antonin Scalia said about that.
If in an old-fashioned Catholic family with five sons
you don't get one priest out of it, we're in big trouble.
The other four were very happy when Paul announced that he
was going to take one for the team.
That is the thing about Antonin Scalia. His opinions
could bite. His wit could be cutting. But his good humor
was always in abundant supply. One study from 2005
concluded decisively--or as decisively as one can--that
Antonin Scalia was the funniest Justice on the Court.
He was also careful not to confuse the philosophical
with the personal. ``I attack ideas. I don't attack
people. ... And if you can't separate the two, you gotta
get another day job.''
These qualities endeared him to many who thought very
differently than he did--most famously, his philosophical
opposite on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their
friendship began after Ginsburg heard him speak at a law
conference. Here is what she said: ``I disagreed with most
of what he said,'' she recalled, ``but I loved the way he
said it.''
Justice Scalia put it this way: ``She likes opera, and
she's a very nice person. What's not to like?''
``Well,'' he continued, ``except her views on the law.''
Ginsburg called him Nino. Justice Scalia referred to the
pair as the ``Odd Couple.'' They actually vacationed
together. They rode elephants. They parasailed. Just a few
months ago, their relationship was captured in the perfect
medium: opera, their shared love.
``Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic
Proportions'' premiered last summer. In it, a jurist named
Scalia is imprisoned for ``excessive dissenting,'' and it
is none other than Ginsburg, or an actress faintly
resembling her, who comes crashing through the ceiling to
save him. It is the kind of show that is larger than life,
and so was Nino Scalia.
He leaves behind nine children and a wife who loved him
dearly, Maureen. Maureen would sometimes tease her husband
that she had her pick of suitors and could just as well
have married any of them. But she didn't, he would remind
her, because they were wishy-washy, and she would have
been bored.
``Whatever my faults are,'' Antonin Scalia once said,
``I am not wishy-washy.''
Far from wishy-washy and anything but boring, Justice
Scalia was an articulate champion of the Constitution. He
was a personality unto himself, and his passing is a
significant loss for the Court and for our country. We
remember him today. We express our sympathies to the large
and loving family he leaves behind. We know our country
will not soon forget him.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we were all shocked by the
sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Scalia and I had our differences. However, there
was no doubting his intelligence or dedication to the
country. I offer my condolences to the entire Scalia
family, who laid to rest a devoted husband, father, and
grandfather this weekend.
I watched the funeral from Nevada, and I was deeply
impressed with Justice Scalia's son, Rev. Paul Scalia, and
the moving eulogy he gave his father. It was quite
remarkable. ...
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to pay
tribute to Associate Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court.
His recent death is a tremendous loss to the Court and the
Nation.
He was a defender of the Constitution. Since his death,
a wide range of commentators--even many who disagreed with
him on judicial philosophy--have hailed him as one of the
greatest Supreme Court Justices in our history. Justice
Scalia was a tireless defender of constitutional freedom.
In so many cases when the Court was divided, he sided with
litigants who raised claims under the Bill of Rights. This
was a manifestation of his view that the Constitution
should be interpreted according to the text and as it was
originally understood.
The Framers believed that the Constitution was adopted
to protect individual liberty, and, of course, so did
Justice Scalia. He was a strong believer in free speech
and freedom of religion. He upheld many claims of
constitutional rights by criminal defendants, including
search and seizure, jury trials, and the right of the
accused to confront the witnesses against them.
Justice Scalia's memorable opinions also recognize the
importance the Framers placed on the Constitution's checks
and balances to safeguard individual liberty. Their
preferred protection of freedom was not through litigation
and the Court's imperfect after-the-fact redress for
liberty deprived.
Justice Scalia zealously protected the prerogatives of
each branch of government and the division of powers
between Federal and State authorities so that none would
be so strong as to pose a danger to freedom.
We are all saddened by the recent death of Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia. I extend my sympathies to his
family. His death is a great loss to the Nation.
This is true for so many reasons. Justice Scalia changed
legal discourse in this country. He focused legal argument
on text and original understanding, rather than a judge's
own views of changing times. He was a clear thinker. His
judicial opinions and other writings were insightful,
witty, and unmistakably his own.
Even those who disagreed with him have acknowledged he
was one of the greatest Justices ever to serve on the
Supreme Court.
Today I would like to address a common misconception
about Justice Scalia, one that couldn't be further from
the truth. Some press stories have made the astounding
claim that Justice Scalia interpreted individual liberties
narrowly. This is absolutely untrue.
It's important to show how many times Justice Scalia was
part of a 5 to 4 majority that upheld or even expanded
individual rights.
If someone other than Justice Scalia had served on the
Court, individual liberty would have paid the price.
The first time Justice Scalia played such a pivotal role
for liberty was in a takings clause case under the Fifth
Amendment. He ruled that when a State imposes a condition
on a land use permit, the government must show a close
connection between the impact of the construction and the
permit condition.
Even though I disagreed, he ruled that the First
Amendment's free speech clause prohibits the States or the
Federal Government from criminalizing burning of the flag.
Congress cannot, he concluded, claim power under the
commerce clause to criminalize an individual's ownership
of a firearm in a gun-free school zone.
Justice Scalia was part of a five-member majority that
held that under the free speech clause, a public
university cannot refuse to allocate a share of student
activity funds to religious publications when it provides
funds to secular publications.
He found the 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from
commandeering State and local officials to enforce Federal
laws.
The Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling including Justice Scalia,
concluded that it didn't violate the First Amendment's
establishment of religion clause for public school
teachers to teach secular subjects in parochial schools,
as long as there is no excessive entanglement between the
State and the religious institution.
Justice Scalia believed that the Sixth Amendment right
to a jury trial requires certain sentencing factors be
charged in the indictment and submitted to a jury for it
to decide, rather than a judge.
He concluded with four other Justices that the First
Amendment's freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts
to exclude from its membership individuals who'd affect
the ability of the group to advocate public or private
views.
Showing that original intent can't be lampooned for
failing to take technological changes into account,
Justice Scalia wrote the Court's majority opinion holding
that under the Fourth Amendment, police can't use thermal
imaging technology or other technology not otherwise
available to the general public for surveillance of a
person's house, even without physical entry, without a
warrant.
He decided that notwithstanding the establishment
clause, a broad class of low-income parents may receive
public school vouchers to defray the costs of their
children's attendance at private schools of their choice,
including religious schools.
He voted to strike down as a violation of the Sixth
Amendment's right to a jury trial Federal and State
sentencing guidelines that permit judges rather than
juries to determine the facts permitting a sentence to be
lengthened beyond what is otherwise permissible.
Justice Scalia found placing the Ten Commandments on the
Texas State House grounds doesn't violate the First
Amendment's establishment clause when the monument was
considered in context, and conveyed a historical and
social message rather than a religious one.
He was part of a 5 to 4 Court that concluded the denial
of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to his
counsel of choice, not only denial of counsel generally,
automatically requires reversal of his conviction.
He wrote for a 5 to 4 majority that the Second Amendment
protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home, in Federal enclaves such as Washington, DC. A
later 5 to 4 decision applies this individual Second
Amendment right against State interference as well.
According to Justice Scalia and four other Justices, a
warrantless search of an automobile of a person who has
been put under arrest is permissible under the Fourth
Amendment only if there is a continuing threat to officer
safety, or there is a need to preserve evidence.
Justice Scalia also voted that it is a violation of the
Sixth Amendment right of the accused to confront the
witnesses against him for the prosecution to use a drug
test report without the live testimony of the particular
person who performed the test.
He was part of a 5 to 4 majority that found that the
First Amendment requires that corporations, including
nonprofit corporations such as the Sierra Club and the
National Rifle Association, are free to make unlimited
independent campaign expenditures.
Under the free exercise of religion clause, according to
Justice Scalia and four other Justices, a closely held
corporation is exempt from a law that its owners
religiously object to, such as Obamacare's contraception
mandate, if there is a less restrictive way to advance the
law's interests.
Think about the liberty lost, had Justice Scalia not
served our Nation.
A different Justice might have ruled against individual
liberty in each of these cases. It is a frightening
prospect. But in each instance, that is what four of
Justice Scalia's colleagues would have done.
Of course, these are only the 5 to 4 opinions. There
were many others where Justice Scalia ruled in favor of
constitutional liberty, and more than four other Justices
joined him.
Then there were other decisions where Justice Scalia
voted to accept the claim of individual liberty, but a
majority of the Court didn't. Some of those cases
unquestionably should've come out the other way.
When considering Justice Scalia's contribution to
individual liberty, it's vital to consider his great
insight that the Bill of Rights is not the most important
part of the Constitution in protecting freedom.
For him, as for the Framers of the Constitution, it is
the structural provisions of the Constitution, the checks
and balances and the separation of powers that are most
protective of liberty.
These were made part of the Constitution not as ends
unto themselves, or as the basis to bring lawsuits after
rights were threatened, but as ways to prevent government
from encroaching on individual freedom in the first place.
For instance, Justice Scalia protected the vertical
separation of powers that is federalism. Federalism keeps
decisions closer to the people but also ensures we have a
unified nation. It prevents a federal government from
overstepping its bounds in ways that threaten freedom.
He also maintained the horizontal separation of powers
through strong support of the checks and balances in the
Constitution. He defended the power of Congress against
Executive encroachment, such as in the recess appointments
case.
Justice Scalia protected the judiciary against
legislative infringement of its powers. He defended the
Executive against legislative usurpation as well.
The best example, and the one that most directly shows
the connection between the separation of powers and
individual freedom, was his solo dissent to the Court's
upholding of the Independent Counsel Act.
Contrary to the overwhelming views of the public, the
media, and politicians at the time, Justice Scalia
correctly viewed that statute not as a wolf in sheep's
clothing, but as an actual wolf.
Dismissively rejected in 1988 by nearly all observers,
his dissent understood that the creation of a prosecutor
for the sole purpose of investigating individuals rather
than crimes not only was a threat to the Executive's power
to prosecute, but was destined to produce unfair
prosecutions.
It's now viewed as one of the most insightful, well-
reasoned, farsighted, and greatest dissents in the Court's
history. But his powerful and true arguments didn't
convince a single colleague to join him.
As important as his 5 to 4 rulings were, in so many
ways, the difference between having Justice Scalia on the
Court and not having him there, was what that meant for
rigorous analysis of the law.
Justice Scalia's role as a textualist and an originalist
was vital to his voting so frequently in favor of
constitutional liberties. He reached conclusions supported
by law whether they were popular or not, and often whether
he agreed with them or not.
He opposed flag burning. He didn't want to prevent the
police from arresting dangerous criminals or make trials
even more complicated and cumbersome.
He acted in the highest traditions of the Constitution
and our judiciary.
We all owe him a debt of gratitude. We all should give
serious thought to the kind of judging that, like his, is
necessary to preserve our freedoms and our constitutional
order.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I recently joined my good
friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
in writing an opinion piece. We expressed our joint view
that the death of Justice Scalia represented a significant
loss for our country ...
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past weekend the Nation
honored Justice Antonin Scalia, who was laid to rest after
serving on the Supreme Court for nearly three decades.
Marcelle and I were home in Vermont when we learned that
Justice Scalia had passed. Frankly, we were stunned by the
news. I did not often agree with Justice Scalia, but he
was a brilliant jurist with a deep commitment to our
country and to the Constitution, and we enjoyed his
friendship for decades. He will be remembered as one of
the most influential Justices in modern history. ...
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on February 13 the Nation was
shaken by the news that Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia had passed away. Justice Scalia served on the
Nation's highest Court for 29 years, and he was a major
figure on the American legal landscape. Justice Scalia was
described by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit
as ``the most influential justice of the last quarter
century.''
Over the years I came to know Justice Scalia. He was a
man of great intellect, good humor, and he was a very
social person. We certainly disagreed on many fundamental
issues, but even those who disagreed with Justice Scalia
on legal matters still admired him as a person.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--no ideological ally of
Justice Scalia--wrote after his death, ``we were best
buddies.'' She described him as ``a jurist of captivating
brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the
most sober judge laugh.'' Justice Ginsberg said she and
Justice Scalia were ``different in our interpretation of
written texts,'' but they were ``one in our reverence for
the Constitution and the institution we serve.'' I have
great respect for the decades Justice Scalia spent in
public service. My thoughts and prayers clearly go with
his family. ...
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of
one of our Nation's greatest champions of limited
government under the Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Scalia set the standard for the kind of judge upon
which liberty depends. He was a dear friend, and I will
miss him greatly.
The purpose of government, according to the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution, is to secure
inalienable rights and the blessings of liberty. Liberty
exists by design and, as Andrew Jackson put it, by eternal
vigilance. America's Founders were clear that liberty
requires separated and limited government powers,
including a particular role for unelected judges. Judges
who seek to determine what the law is promote liberty;
judges who say what they think the law should be undermine
it.
Put simply, judges must interpret and apply the law
impartially; that is, by setting aside their own opinions,
preferences, or prejudices. Interpreting and applying the
law impartially particularly leaves the American people
and their elected representatives in charge of the law.
When they interpret written law impartially, they discern
what the original public meaning of the law is. When
judges apply the law impartially, they pay no regard to
the identity of the parties or the political effects of
their decision. Judges can neither make nor change the law
they use to decide cases. That is the kind of judge
liberty requires. That is the kind of judge Antonin Scalia
was.
When President Ronald Reagan first appointed Antonin
Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in
1982, the future Justice said to those of us on the
Judiciary Committee that if confirmed the time for him to
opine on the wisdom of laws would be ``bygone days.'' When
he again came before the committee a few years later as a
Supreme Court nominee, he repeated that setting aside
personal views is ``one of the primary qualifications for
a judge.'' He described a ``good judge'' as one who starts
from the law itself and not ``where I would like to come
out in [a] particular case.''
Justice Scalia's brilliance and wit were certainly
impressive, but they were powerfully connected to this
deeply considered and deliberately framed judicial
philosophy rooted in the principles of the Constitution.
He stuck doggedly to this ideal of the good judge whose
role in our system of government is limited to properly
interpreting the law and impartially applying it to decide
cases. His approach requires self-restraint by judges.
Judges, he often said, must take the law as they find it
and apply it even when they do not like the results. In
his own words, ``If you're going to be a good and faithful
judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're
not always going to like the conclusions you reach.''
Liberty requires such judicial self-restraint, whether
it is en vogue or not. As President Reagan put it when he
witnessed the oath of office administered to Justice
Scalia in September 1986, America's Founders intended that
the judiciary be independent and strong but also confined
within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws.
No one believed that principle more deeply and insisted
on implementing it more consistently than our Justice
Scalia. His approach to the law was often called
textualism or, in the constitutional context,
originalism--an approach which is nothing more than
determining the original public meaning of the legal text.
It leaves the lawmaking to the lawmakers and the people
they represent, rather than to the judge.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Scalia's
nomination on September 17, 1986, the 199th anniversary of
the Constitution's ratification. That was very appropriate
because his approach gives the Constitution its real due,
treating it as more than empty words on a page but as
words that already have meaning and substance. Justice
Scalia knew that the Constitution cannot limit
government's power if government actors--including
judges--define the Constitution.
Justice Scalia rejected judicial activism--what he
called power-judging--that treats the law as shape-
shifting. For activists, the laws and the Constitution
have no fixed meaning but can rather be contorted and
manipulated to fit the judge's own policy preference. Such
an approach puts the unelected judge, not the American
people in their elected representatives, in the position
of supreme lawmaker.
Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges controlled the
Constitution's meaning, it would be ``a mere thing of wax
in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and
shape into any form they please.'' That is exactly what
activist judges do, treating the law like clay that they
can mold in their own image.
Rather than reinterpreting the law in his own image, the
good judge conforms his decisions to the fixed meaning of
the law. By insisting that even judges must be the
servants rather than the masters of the law, Justice
Scalia was simply following the lead of America's Founders
and empowering the American people.
Justice Scalia's approach to judging not only requires
self-restraint by judges, but it also demands rigor and
accountability by legislators. The good judge takes
seriously the language the legislators enact, so the
people can hold accountable the legislators they elect.
The famed Senator and Supreme Court advocate Daniel
Webster once said that ``there are men in all ages who
mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise
to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.'' Those
who object to Justice Scalia's approach embrace the notion
that judges, rather than the people, should be the masters
of the law.
Justice Scalia's impact has been enormous. A liberal
legal commentator may have put it best in his review of
Justice Scalia's book, ``A Matter of Interpretation,''
with these words:
We are all originalists now. That is to say, most judges
and legal scholars who want to remain within the
boundaries of respectable constitutional discourse agree
that the original meaning of the Constitution and its
amendment has some degree of pertinence to the question of
what the Constitution means today.
Justice Scalia brought the boundaries of respectable
constitutional discourse more in line with the principles
of liberty than they had been in a generation. For that,
our liberty is more secure, and we should be deeply
grateful.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this past Saturday I was
honored to attend the funeral mass for Justice Scalia. I
couldn't help but recall back when President Reagan
nominated him for the Supreme Court of the United States.
At that time Judge Scalia said that ``[his] only [agenda]
was to be a good judge.''
Today, 30 years later, it is clear that Justice Scalia,
who until his death served longer than any of the current
members of the Supreme Court of the United States, was
more than a good judge. In fact, he was a great judge. He
was a giant of American jurisprudence.
As I got to know him even better during the course of
more recent years, thanks to a mutual acquaintance, I can
tell you he was also a good man. My first encounter with
Justice Scalia was back in 1991 when I won an election to
be on the Texas Supreme Court and the court invited
Justice Scalia to come to Austin, TX, and administer the
oath of office. At that time I already admired his
intellect and commitment to the Constitution and the rule
of law, and believe me, he was an inspiration to young
judges like me who were inspired to do the same. He has
been an inspiration to so many judges, lawyers, and law
students for decades.
I admired and respected Justice Scalia. Like many
Texans, I was proud of the fact that he also seemed to
love Texas, believe it or not, even though he was a
Virginian. He remarked once that if he didn't live in
Virginia, he would ``probably want to be a Texan.''
I wish to spend a couple of minutes remembering this
great man and the contributions he made to our Nation.
Beyond his incredible resume, Justice Scalia was a devoted
husband to Maureen for more than 50 years. He was a
dedicated father to 9 children and a grandfather to more
than 30 grandchildren. As I said earlier, he was not only
a family man, which I am sure he would have considered his
most important job, he was a role model for a generation
of lawyers, judges, legal scholars, and those who loved
the Constitution.
One of the interesting things about Justice Scalia--and
perhaps he could teach all of us a little something these
days--was that he was quick to build relationships with
people who had different views from his own and fostered
an environment of collegiality and friendship on the
Court.
As we learned earlier, Justice Scalia had relationships
with people with whom he couldn't have disagreed more on
key issues that the Court confronted--people like Justice
Ginsburg, for example. We all know he was a gifted writer
and possessed an infectious wit, but Justice Scalia's most
important legacy is his life's work and his call for a
return to our constitutional first principles.
Justice Scalia strongly believed that words mattered,
and I think that is one of the reasons why he quickly
became one of the most memorable writers on the Court and
one of the best in the Court's entire history. He believed
the words written in the Constitution mattered because
that was the only thing the States voted on when they
ratified the Constitution. Those were the words with which
the American people chose to govern themselves. For
decades he tried to give those words force and fought
against an attempt to say that we really don't have a
written Constitution; we have a living Constitution that
should be reinterpreted based on the times when, indeed,
the text had not changed one bit.
His originalist interpretation of the Constitution meant
that he viewed the Court as a place to vindicate the law
and what it meant, not express the preferences of five
Justices. Justice Scalia was one of the most fervent
advocates for the rule of law and a written Constitution.
On many instances, he made the important point that if the
Supreme Court was viewed merely as a group of nine
individuals making value judgments on how our country
ought to be governed under our Constitution, then the
people may well feel that their values were equally as
valid as those of the ``high nine'' on the Potomac given
life tenure and a seat on the Supreme Court. It was his
strict adherence to the text of the Constitution, and not
evolving value judgments over time, that gave protection
to our democracy.
Justice Scalia was strongly committed to the separation
of powers. This is so fundamental to the Constitution
that, until the first Congress, James Madison didn't even
think that we needed a Bill of Rights because he felt that
the separation of powers and the division of
responsibilities would be protection enough because they
viewed the concentration of powers, the opposite of
separation of powers, as a threat to our very liberty. I
think he said that the very definition of tyranny was the
concentration of powers. So he saw the separation of
powers as nothing less than the most important guarantor
of our liberty and the most important shield against
tyranny.
In one dissent Justice Scalia wrote ``without a secure
structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be
worthless.'' I guess you would have to say he is a
Madisonian and not a Federalist by temperament and view.
This recognition of the importance of separation of powers
could not be any more important at this point in our
history because scarcely a month goes by when this
administration has chosen to undermine this basic
constitutional precept by exerting itself and claiming
authorities which the Constitution does not give the
President.
Justice Scalia understood what was at stake. He believed
that every blow to the separation of powers would harm our
republic and liberty itself.
As Justice Scalia wrote in a case in which the Court
unanimously struck down the President's violations of the
constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, he said:
``We should therefore take every opportunity to affirm the
primacy of the Constitution's enduring principles over the
politics of the moment.'' He continued, warning against
``aggrandizing the Presidency beyond its constitutional
bounds.'' That is what Justice Scalia did time and again,
and that is what he reminded all of us about--the
importance of doctrines of separation of powers, adherence
to the text of the Constitution, and not making it up as
you are going along or expressing value judgments that
can't be related to the actual text and original
understanding of the Constitution. ...
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. ... I wish to begin by saying that my
prayers and thoughts are with the family and friends and
Supreme Court colleagues of Justice Scalia. He was a great
scholar who had friends in many places. Just last week I
was at the University of Chicago Law School, where I went
to law school, and so many people have stories. He used to
teach there. He taught there for a long period of time,
and they miss him very much. ...
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to
honor the life and service of Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia.
Justice Scalia was a dedicated public servant who gave
so many years to our courts and our country. He and I
didn't agree on every issue, but his intellect, passion,
and commitment were unquestionable. I know he will be
missed, and the thoughts and prayers of Washington State
families go out to his family. ...
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to offer a few words
remembering Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the
Supreme Court. America has lost a legal giant and tireless
defender of the Constitution. Justice Scalia dedicated his
life to his country and the rule of law. His passing is a
significant loss for the Court and the United States.
Few Associate Justices of the Supreme Court capture the
attention of both lawyers and non-lawyers like Justice
Scalia has throughout his career. Antonin Scalia used wit,
humor, and colorful writing to captivate Americans in his
judicial opinions and educational talks. Justice Scalia
also felt strongly about protecting the rights of the
individual and did so in monumental opinions interpreting
the First, Second, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments. In the
immediate days following his passing, I received
substantial correspondence from Wyoming residents praising
his work for upholding the Constitution and defending
individual liberties.
A number of my colleagues have already mentioned how
Justice Scalia would always put the Constitution first,
even if it conflicted with his personal views. This was
the case when Justice Scalia voted to uphold the right of
protesters to burn the American flag--even though he
strongly disagreed with flag desecration.
When it comes to privacy, Justice Scalia established
himself as a leading champion of the Fourth Amendment,
particularly when it comes to privacy in one's home or
car.
Justice Scalia also authored a landmark majority opinion
upholding gun rights under the Second Amendment which
reiterated the constitutional right of an individual to
keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia, a right
which was later incorporated to all States.
Justice Scalia also fought ardently for religious
freedoms under the establishment clause and joined others
in upholding freedom of association under the First
Amendment.
From his earliest days on the Supreme Court, Justice
Scalia approached the Constitution and statutes passed by
Congress as a textualist. He protected the vertical
separation of power in our federalist system which keeps
decisions closer to the people and fought for the
separation of powers among the three branches of Federal
Government.
Most recently, Justice Scalia challenged Executive
overreach in the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court
invalidating President Obama's unconstitutional recess
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Finally, Justice Scalia's writings, judicial philosophy,
and lectures have influenced future generations of lawyers
and jurists. Whether, during oral argument, asking if the
government can ``make people buy broccoli'' or referencing
Cole Porter lyrics in opinions, Justice Scalia used words
to rebut, challenge, and persuade.
Justice Scalia's legacy and legal precedents will stand
the test of time, and our Nation owes him a debt of
gratitude for his service. My wife Diana and I send our
prayers and condolences to the Scalia family.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday it was my privilege
to say a few words honoring Justice Antonin Scalia, known
to his friends as ``Nino,'' a man whose intellect, wit,
and dedication to our Constitution have served our country
for decades. I am pleased that others have said
appropriate words honoring his memory and the many ways he
helped strengthen our constitutional self-government and
our democracy. ...
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk about Justice
Scalia for a few minutes. ...
There is no question that the Supreme Court has lost a
strong and thoughtful voice. No matter what issues the
Justices on the Court might have disagreed with, or even
when there was a disagreement on how to interpret the
Constitution, there is no question that Judge Scalia had a
unique capacity to get beyond that. He will be missed by
the Court for both his intellect and his friendship. He
was an Associate Justice on the Court for almost 30 years.
He was a true constitutional scholar, both in his work
before the Court and on the Court, and he brought a
lifetime of understanding of the law to the Court.
He began his legal career in 1961, practicing in private
practice. In 1967 he became part of the faculty of the
University of Virginia School of Law. In 1972 he joined
the Nixon administration as General Counsel for the Office
of Telecommunications Policy, and from there he was
appointed Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Counsel. He brought a great deal of knowledge to his
work and finished the first part of his career as a law
professor at the University of Chicago, and that is the
point where he became a judge.
In 1982 President Reagan appointed him to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a court that gets
many of the cases that wind up on the Supreme Court. He
was on that court for a little more than 4 years.
In 1986 President Reagan nominated him to serve as an
Associate Justice. He was an unwavering defender of the
Constitution, and as a member of the Supreme Court, he had
the ability to debate as perhaps no one had in a long
time--and perhaps no one will for a long time. He had a
sense of what the Constitution was all about and a sense
of what the Constitution meant, and by that he meant what
the Constitution meant to the people who wrote it.
There is a way to change the Constitution. If the
country and the Congress think that the Constitution is
outmoded in the way that it would have been looked at by
the people who wrote it, there is a process to do
something about that. That process was immediately used
when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and
can still be used if people feel the Constitution no
longer has the same meaning as what the people who wrote
it and voted on it thought it meant. Justice Scalia had
the ability to bring that up in every argument and would
sometimes argue against his own personal views. He argued
for what the Constitution meant and what it was intended
to mean. His opinions were well reasoned, logical,
eloquent, and often laced with both humor and maybe a
little sarcasm, but they were grounded with the idea that
judges should interpret the Constitution the way it was
written.
His contributions to the study of law left a profound
mark on the legal profession. Lawyers, particularly young
lawyers in many cases, talk about the law differently than
they did before Justice Scalia began to argue his view of
what the Constitution meant and what the Court meant. He
had a great legal mind.
He was fun to be with. I will personally miss the
opportunity to talk to him about the books we were reading
or books the other one should read or maybe books that the
other one should avoid reading because of the time
required to read it. He had a broad sense of wanting to
challenge his own views and was able to challenge other
people's views not only in a positive way but in a way
that he thought advanced the Constitution and what the
Constitution meant to the country.
As I stand here today, I am sure many people all over
America and the people who the Scalias came into contact
with are continuing to remember his family. Our thoughts
and prayers are with his wife Maureen, their nine
children, and their literally dozens of grandchildren. I
am not sure if the number is 36 or 39, but it is an
impressive number.
Those who had a chance to see, be there, or read his
son's eloquent handling of the funeral service and the
eulogy can clearly see the great legacy he and Maureen
Scalia left to the country.
I am not a lawyer, which is often the most popular thing
I say, so I don't want to pretend to be a lawyer here
talking about the law and the Constitution, but you don't
really need to be a brilliant lawyer to understand the
Constitution or understand what Justice Scalia was going
to be. ...
Justice Scalia was appointed by Ronald Reagan and served
for three decades. He served for a quarter of a century
after Ronald Reagan left the White House and for a decade
after President Reagan died. ...
Mr. FRANKEN. ... Make no mistake, the passing of Justice
Antonin Scalia came as a great shock. Although Justice
Scalia and I did not share a common view of the
Constitution or of the country, I recognized that he was a
man of great conviction and, it should be said, a man of
great humor. My thoughts and prayers are with his family,
his friends, his clerks, and his colleagues. ...
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia was an extraordinary man whose contributions to
this country and the American people, whom he faithfully
served from the bench, are so prodigious that it will take
generations for us to fully comprehend our debt of great
gratitude to him. His untimely, recent death is a tragedy,
and his legacy is a blessing to friends of freedom
throughout this country and everywhere.
Justice Scalia was a learned student of history and a
man who relished, perhaps more than any other, a spirited,
lively debate. ...
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Nation in offering
my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of
Justice Scalia, who was an Associate Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court. For more than three decades, Justice Scalia
devoted himself to the rule of law and public service at
the highest levels. Whether you agreed or disagreed with
his decisions, there is no debate about Justice Scalia's
profound impact on the Supreme Court. He served his
country with great honor. ...
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. ... I come here not only as a U.S.
Senator but also as a former Federal prosecutor, a U.S.
attorney in Connecticut from 1977 to 1981, a former State
attorney general for 20 years, and a veteran of four
arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. I am also here as
a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, and I share
with the Presiding Officer the experience of having had
that supremely important and formative experience, and, of
course, it shapes my view as well of the Court.
I have immense respect and awe for the position and
power and eminence of the U.S. Supreme Court, its role in
our democracy, and its history of scholarship and public
service. I have the same admiration for Justice Antonin
Scalia, and I take this moment to remember his uniquely
American life.
As the son of an immigrant, he was a dedicated public
servant, a gifted writer, and a powerful speaker. I heard
him speak on a number of occasions and argued before him
in the Court in a number of memorable exchanges. His sense
of humor and his quickness of wit and insight remain with
me now. As all of my colleagues will attest, he dedicated
his life to serving the public, which can be demanding and
difficult at times, but his life showed, as we know, that
the difficulties and the demands are well worth the
rewards. My thoughts are with his wife Maureen and his
entire family. ...
SENATE RESOLUTION 374--RELATING TO THE DEATH OF ANTONIN
SCALIA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burr, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey,
Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Coons, Mr. Corker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Mrs.
Ernst, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr.
Franken, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Heller, Ms. Hirono,
Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Kaine, Mr. King, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford,
Mr. Lee, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. McCain, Mrs.
McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson,
Mr. Paul, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Peters, Mr. Portman, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Scott,
Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey,
Mr. Udall, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the
following resolution; which was ordered held at the desk:
S. Res. 374
Whereas Antonin Scalia, the late Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States, was born in
Trenton, New Jersey, to Salvatore Eugene Scalia and
Catherine Panaro Scalia and raised in Queens, New York;
Whereas Antonin Scalia enrolled in Georgetown
University, where he graduated valedictorian and summa cum
laude and earned a bachelor's degree in history;
Whereas Antonin Scalia graduated magna cum laude from
Harvard Law School, where he was a notes editor for the
Harvard Law Review;
Whereas Antonin Scalia married Maureen McCarthy, with
whom he raised 9 children, Ann, Eugene, John, Catherine,
Mary Claire, Paul, Matthew, Christopher, and Margaret;
Whereas Antonin Scalia was an accomplished attorney in
Cleveland, Ohio, and a law professor at the University of
Virginia and the University of Chicago;
Whereas President Richard Nixon selected Antonin Scalia
to be General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications
Policy;
Whereas Antonin Scalia served as chairman of the
Administrative Conference of the United States;
Whereas President Richard Nixon selected Antonin Scalia
to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Counsel of the Department of Justice, and President Gerald
Ford resubmitted the nomination of Antonin Scalia to serve
in that position;
Whereas President Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia
to be a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit;
Whereas President Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia
to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States;
Whereas Antonin Scalia had a profound love for hunting
and the arts, in particular opera;
Whereas Antonin Scalia was a man of enormous intellect,
incisive analytical skill, and tremendous wit, a
combination reflected in the clarity of his judicial
opinions;
Whereas the record of Antonin Scalia illustrates a
belief in judicial restraint, judicial independence, and
the rule of law;
Whereas Antonin Scalia moved public discussion toward a
greater appreciation of the text and original meaning of
the Constitution as a basis for interpreting the terms of
the Constitution;
Whereas Antonin Scalia enforced the separation of powers
contained in the Constitution as a bulwark for individual
freedom;
Whereas Antonin Scalia raised the level of the quality
of oral argument and judicial decisionmaking;
Whereas Antonin Scalia was highly regarded by each of
his colleagues, including colleagues with a judicial
philosophy that differed from his own;
Whereas Antonin Scalia served with distinction on the
Supreme Court for more than 29 years;
Whereas Antonin Scalia was 1 of the most influential and
memorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States;
Whereas Antonin Scalia was the embodiment of each of the
ideal qualities of a judge: fairness, openmindedness, and
above all commitment to intellectual rigor in application
of the Constitution and the rule of law;
Whereas Antonin Scalia will be remembered as 1 of the
great Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States;
Whereas Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016;
and
Whereas the nation is deeply indebted to Antonin Scalia,
a truly distinguished individual of the United States:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) extends heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends
of Antonin Scalia;
(2) acknowledges the lifetime of service of Antonin
Scalia to the United States as a talented attorney, a
learned law professor, a dedicated public servant, a
brilliant jurist, and 1 of the great Justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States; and
(3) commends Antonin Scalia for the 29-year tenure on
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. ... I sure disagreed with Justice Scalia on
a lot of things, but I do not argue with Judge Posner of
the Seventh Circuit in my State when he said that Justice
Scalia was a major force in terms of thinking on the
Supreme Court. And what really undergirded the philosophy
of Justice Scalia was what he called originalism. Some
people mocked it, and some people just flat out disagreed
with it. But he said time and again: Read the Constitution
and read the precise wording of the Constitution. I saw
different things in those words than he did, but that was
his North Star when it came to Supreme Court decisions.
...
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from
Utah.
Mr. HATCH. ... On Tuesday, I rose to honor the memory of
the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I knew quite well.
With his passing, the Nation lost one of its greatest
Supreme Court Justices ever to have served, and I lost a
dear friend. ...
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my deepest
sympathies to the Scalia family.
Justice Scalia was first and foremost a family man,
beloved by his wife, 9 children, and 36 grandchildren.
Since 1986 he had served on the highest court in our
land. He inspired deep loyalty among his many friends and
his current and former clerks, who remember him for his
sharp wit and intellect.
He was clearly a man who rose above ideological
differences with his colleagues to forge deep friendships
on the Court. That is a credit to him.
While I may have disagreed with him on matters of law
and policy, we are united as Americans in sharing our
condolences.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Mr. McCONNELL. ... Justice Scalia himself reminded us
that setting aside one's personal views is ``one of the
primary qualifications for a judge.'' His aim was to
follow the Constitution wherever it took him, even if he
disagreed politically with the outcome. We saw that when
he sided with the constitutional right of protestors to
burn the American flag. ``If you're going to be a good and
faithful judge,'' he said, ``you have to resign yourself
to the fact that you're not always going to like the
conclusions you reach.''
Mr. WARNER. ... I wish to say a few words about Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia and to offer my condolences
to his family. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Judge
Scalia's decisions--and mechanically I disagreed with many
of them--he was a remarkable jurist and he was a
remarkable individual. Over the last 10-plus years, I got
to know him and his wife Maureen more in a social setting.
He was warm, witty, charming, brilliant, and he will be
missed by all who agreed or disagreed with him. My
thoughts continue to be with Maureen and his family. ...
Mr. ISAKSON. ... Think about this. Ronald Reagan
appointed Antonin Scalia in 1986. Antonin Scalia served on
the Court for almost 30 years until 2016. ...
I commend Antonin Scalia for being a great servant to
the American people. He was a great jurist, a great
writer, and a great judge. He will be missed. ...
Mr. BENNET. ... I think it is important to reflect on
Justice Scalia's life and profound contribution and
influence on the Court and our country. He was one of the
longest serving Justices in our Nation's history, and, as
far as I can tell, every single day he served, he applied
his considerable intellect, integrity, and wit to the work
before him.
Although I disagreed with many of his decisions, I never
doubted his commitment to the rule of law. He was a
principled originalist. He was loyal to his country. By
all accounts, including moving testimony from his
children, he was devoted to his family and to his friends,
including to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom he
often disagreed. ...
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Mr. DONNELLY. ... the passing of Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia--and our condolences to his family and our
gratitude for all his hard work on behalf of his country
...
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with the passing of Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia, our Nation has lost an
exceptional jurist and unshakable defender of the U.S.
Constitution.
Justice Scalia will be remembered for using his
substantial intellect to affect how the American public
views the Constitution and the role of the courts in
interpreting the law. His thoughtful opinions over nearly
30 years on the Court shaped modern jurisprudence and
helped facilitate a larger discussion on the role of the
Constitution in contemporary terms and application.
Justice Scalia had an accomplished career as an
attorney, law professor, General Counsel for the Office of
Telecommunications Policy, Chairman of the Administrative
Conference, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice, and as a
judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. It was an honor for me to support his
confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
following his nomination by President Reagan in 1986.
Justice Scalia, who had a great love for the arts,
education, and hunting, developed an affinity for the
State of Mississippi and made many friends during his
visits to my State. Many Mississippians shared Justice
Scalia's interest in hunting deer, duck, quail, and
turkey, but his most important influence on Mississippi
may result from the generous time he invested speaking to
young scholars during his visits to university campuses in
my State.
We mark Justice Scalia's passing by rightfully
acknowledging his many years of public service, his
defense of the founding principles of our Nation, and his
steadfast adherence to a conservative view of our
Constitution. I am proud to have known and supported him.
I extend to his family sincere condolences and the
thanks of a grateful Nation for Justice Scalia's
distinguished contributions and service to our Nation.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the entire country knows,
it was about 1 month ago that we lost Justice Antonin
Scalia. Our country is still dealing with the loss of this
man, whose contribution to our highest Court and the
health of our Constitution cannot be overstated.
Justice Scalia understood the actual words in the
Constitution were important. He famously said that if the
American people realized what the Supreme Court did on
occasion, which was to substitute their value judgments
instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws--rather
to substitute their value judgments for those of the
people and their elected representatives--they might well
feel their values were superior and preferable to those of
an unelected life-tenured member of the U.S. Supreme
Court. That is an important reminder.
Justice Scalia was known for expressing himself very
colorfully and clearly, and he clearly was no fan of
making it up as you go along, which, unfortunately, can
happen when the Supreme Court chooses to substitute their
values for those of the American people rather than
interpret the law and the Constitution.
Justice Scalia was also a key figure when it came to
making sure the Court policed the check of Executive power
on legislative power. In other words, he believed in the
separation of powers and checks and balances. I don't
think it is an exaggeration to say that Justice Scalia
helped resuscitate our constitutional principles and
inspired the next generation of lawyers and legal scholars
and judges to care deeply about our Constitution as
originally written. Because of Justice Scalia, our
republic is stronger. ...
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, Antonin Scalia entered the
world as the son and grandson of Italian immigrants in
1936. When he unexpectedly departed this life last month,
he was the patriarch of a large American family and the
intellectual father of the most important legal movement
in generations. Between those points, he lived an
extraordinarily full life that helped shaped the course of
our country.
By 1980, Antonin Scalia had already accomplished more at
the age of 44 than most can ever hope to in a lifetime. He
had been a distinguished lawyer, served at the highest
levels of the government, and taught at the country's best
law schools. He might have continued to develop a
reputation as the Nation's brightest law professor and
scholar, but providence had still more to ask of him.
Upon his election, President Ronald Reagan came to
Washington with a mission to restore a country that seemed
divided and in decline. He promised to rebuild our
military, revive our economy, and restore our sense of
purpose. Just as critical as these efforts, President
Reagan was determined to bring new life to our Founders'
vision of our Constitution, which provided for carefully
limited government, separation of powers, and the rule of
law. In accordance with that determination, Reagan
appointed Antonin Scalia first to the critical DC Circuit
Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the
United States. The three-decade judicial career that
followed would establish Justice Scalia as one of the most
influential American jurists--and one of the most
consequential Americans--in our Nation's history.
The Federal judiciary that Antonin Scalia joined in 1982
had, for too long, both abused and shirked its proper
role. It had stripped the American people and their
elected representatives of their legitimate powers by
inventing brand-new ``constitutional rights'' practically
out of thin air. Just as troubling, it had failed to
uphold the very real constitutional limits on government.
The courts too often treated the text of statutes as mere
suggestions and often appointed themselves as a kind of
superlegislature.
Justice Scalia would not stand for this. He saw this
prevailing approach of judges as an abuse of power and a
threat to a free and self-governing people. For Justice
Scalia, the rule of law was the touchstone of liberty, and
judges had an important role in upholding it. He
understood that America has a written Constitution for
clear reasons: to restrict government and preserve
liberty. As a judge, Antonin Scalia insisted that the
Constitution be applied as written and originally
understood, not freely interpreted by unelected judges. If
the Constitution must change, as it has needed to
throughout our history, the document itself offers an
amendment process.
Justice Scalia had a sharp and well-articulated legal
philosophy that put the text and meaning of the
Constitution and law front and center. A judge, Justice
Scalia believed, must put aside his policy preferences in
order to say what the law is. ``The judge who always likes
the results he reaches is a bad judge,'' he said.
Justice Scalia lived out this approach on the bench. His
majority opinions established clear and well-articulated
precedents. His sharp and colorful dissents brilliantly
exposed moments when too many of his colleagues preferred
to put policy preferences and outcomes above the
Constitution and the rule of law. For conservatives, the
words ``Scalia dissents'' always offered a silver lining--
they meant that a likely damaging legal precedent would at
least come prepackaged with a wonderfully readable
corrective.
Whether he was on the majority or minority side of a
decision, the forceful logic and clear phrasing of Justice
Scalia's opinions commanded attention and engagement. Over
time, his most reliable intellectual adversaries found
themselves increasingly forced to fight on the ground he
established. While Justice Scalia did not win every
argument, he changed the conversation forever. Judicial
activism no longer has a free hand because Antonin Scalia
challenged it and inspired an entire generation of legal
minds to follow his example.
His judicial writing alone would have changed American
law and advanced the cause of liberty, but Justice Scalia
went further than that. He wrote books, lectured, and
mentored students. He traveled around the country, engaged
the media, and debated colleagues and critics. His many
law clerks now distinguish themselves throughout the legal
profession. The Federalist Society, which he helped
nurture in its fledgling years, now provides a lively
forum for a variety of conservative and libertarian
perspectives on law. Antonin Scalia has left us a legal
culture absolutely transformed from the one he found.
Justice Scalia's judicial opinions, legal philosophy,
and forceful advocacy for the rule of law inspired me as a
law student and continue to inspire me to this day. While
a wide array of life experiences and values have shaped
the way I see America and the world, Antonin Scalia has
been the single most important influence on my view of the
Constitution and the proper role of judges in our republic
as men and women who should put the original meaning of
our Constitution ahead of their policy preferences.
Justice Scalia's life is a testimony to the fact that
ideas matter. It is proof that a person of principle, with
the willingness to invest in debate and persuasion, can
change history. His life also reminds us of another
important truth. Particularly in these sharply divided
partisan times, we can lose sight of the fact that the
things that unite us are more important than the things
that divide us. Justice Scalia never did. He knew the
Constitution was his sole guide in his professional life,
but he was also a devout Catholic who accepted that God
has a plan for all of us. He took evident joy in living
out his faith, in loving his family, and in nurturing
countless friendships, even with his ideological foes. We
should all be grateful that God's plan for our Nation,
especially the people whose paths he crossed, included
having Justice Scalia on the Court for the past 29 years.
He was a role model for all of us and particularly for
Christians in public life.
As a U.S. Senator, I led a bipartisan group of
colleagues in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court.
The brief, submitted in the case of Town of Greece v.
Galloway, defended the practice of legislative prayer. It
argued that the original meaning of the First Amendment
clearly did not require the purging of religious
expression from the public square. I attended the oral
argument in the case and will forever be grateful for
having had the opportunity to watch Justice Scalia's sharp
and incisive questioning from the bench.
Although I did not have the good fortune to get to know
Justice Scalia personally, he had a profound impact on me.
All those who cherish the Constitution and limited
government mourn this great loss. Justice Scalia was a
brilliant legal mind who served with honor, distinction,
and only one legal objective: to interpret and defend the
Constitution as written. He is a model for exactly what
his successor and all future Justices should strive to be
on the highest Court in the land.
Antonin Scalia left us far too soon, but his legacy will
remain with us as long as we remain a republic under law.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, it is an honor to pay
tribute to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia
was a staunch defender of the Constitution who, above all,
sought to uphold the original meaning of its text. He
steadfastly adhered to his oath of office, which directed
him to ``administer justice without respect to persons,
[to] do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and [to]
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all [his]
duties ... under the Constitution and laws of the United
States.'' In doing so, he recognized this approach to
judicial interpretation might conflict with popular
opinion. As Justice Scalia once stated: ``If you're going
to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign
yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like
the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time,
you're probably doing something wrong.''
A few years ago, I had the privilege of visiting the
Supreme Court to listen to oral arguments in the case of
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which
concerned the scope of the President's authority to make
recess appointments. I recall being struck by Justice
Scalia's probing questions and his ability to immediately
get to the crux of an issue; yet Justice Scalia never
lacked civility when making an argument. As he once said,
``I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very
good people have some very bad ideas.''
Justice Scalia was known for more than his
jurisprudence. The son of immigrants and the first Italian
American to serve on the Supreme Court, he is remembered
by many for his strong belief in the American dream. A
former law clerk recalled how he introduced Justice Scalia
to his grandfather, a Holocaust survivor. The clerk's
grandfather was nervous to meet a member of the Court, but
Scalia embraced the man. He said he was honored to meet a
man who represented everything that made him proud to be
an American.
Justice Scalia was also a loving husband to Maureen, his
wife of almost 56 years, and the father of nine children
and many grandchildren. Antonin Scalia often noted that
his wife deserved all the credit for their children's
accomplishments. Each year, the ranks of Scalia alumni
would grow, and he would visit with each of them and their
families, even nicknaming their children as his
``grandclerks.'' Justice Scalia was also a man of faith
and looked to the Roman Catholic Church as a guiding force
in his life. One of the Justice's former law clerks
recalled that Scalia's faith inspired the clerk to deepen
his own embrace of religion.
Antonin Scalia loved hunting, the opera, anchovy pizza,
and red wine. He was known for taking law clerks to lunch
at A.V. Ristorante, an Italian restaurant in Washington
that has since closed down. He insisted they order anchovy
pizza and red wine, and he was said to be dismayed when a
clerk declined one or the other. After A.V. Ristorante
closed, he would lead clerks in a hunt for a worthy
replacement.
Of course, as Justice Breyer once noted, Justice Scalia
``loved nothing better than a great argument.'' Although
he frequently disagreed with his colleagues on the Court,
Justice Scalia formed deep bonds and friendships with his
fellow Justices and respected their views. As Justice
Breyer recalled:
We both would hope that the audience of students or
senators would leave not with a better sense of who was
right, but with a greater respect for the institution we
represented. They would see that sometimes we disagreed,
that we nonetheless understood and paid attention to each
other's points of view, that those views were serious
views, and that we were friends. And we were good friends.
When Justice Elena Kagan joined the Supreme Court the
two became hunting buddies. A few times a year, they would
go hunting together to enjoy a shared appreciation for
this sport. But it was his deep friendship with Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg that was well known to many. She
stated recently: ``How blessed I was to have a friend of
such brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit ... we were
different, yes, yet one in our reverence for the court and
its place in the U.S. system of governance.''
Justice Scalia will be remembered for his brilliant
legal mind and faithful dedication to the Constitution. We
will also remember his humor, his spirituality, his love
for his family, and his ability to find common ground even
in the face of disagreement. Let us pray for his family
and friends as we proudly celebrate his service to our
country.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Mr. COTTON. ... For a generation, Justice Nino Scalia
was the conservative heart of the Supreme Court. Whoever
takes his seat will not replace him because there is no
replacement ...
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, the
Supreme Court lost one of its Justices, our Nation lost a
true legal giant.
Justice Scalia was described by colleagues as
``extraordinary,'' ``treasured,'' and a ``stylistic
genius.'' Beyond his unwavering dedication to upholding
the originalist viewpoint of the Constitution, Justice
Scalia was also wholeheartedly committed to his family. He
was a husband, father of 9, and grandfather to 36
grandchildren.
His son Paul said of him during his homily:
God blessed Dad with a love for his family. ... He was
the father that God gave us for the great adventure of
family life. ... He loved us, and sought to show that
love. And sought to share the blessing of the faith he
treasured. And he gave us one another, to have each other
for support. That's the greatest wealth parents can
bestow, and right now we are particularly grateful for it.
Justice Antonin Scalia was nominated to the Supreme
Court in 1986 by President Reagan and was confirmed by the
Senate in a unanimous vote. While his time on the Court
often led to some criticism of his legal opinions and his
very colorful dissents, he remained respected by his
colleagues, even those at the opposite end of the judicial
spectrum. This is a sign of true character--to have an
open, honest debate about a particular issue while
respecting the individual person holding an opinion
different from your own.
Justice Scalia said:
I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very
good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't
separate the two, you gotta get another day job.
The sentiment was best portrayed through his friendship
with Justice Ginsburg. As one of his friends, she said:
We are different, but we are one. Different in our
interpretation of written texts. One in our reverence for
the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our
years together on the DC Circuit, we were best buddies. We
disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and
received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released
was notably better than my initial circulation.
Justice Scalia was known for his wit and his sarcasm in
his writings, famously referring to legal interpretations
of his colleagues as ``jiggery-pokery,'' ``pure
applesauce,'' and ``a ghoul in a late horror movie.'' Yet
it was these same criticisms that Justice Ginsburg said
nailed the weak spots in her opinions and gave her what
she needed to strengthen her writings.
Justice Scalia represented a consistent, constitutional
voice on the Supreme Court. Just as the Constitution is
the pillar of our legal system, so too is his affirmation
to this foundational document of our Nation. He said:
It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend.
... It's what did the words mean to the people who
ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the
Constitution, as opposed to what people today would like.
Justice Kennedy said:
In years to come any history of the Supreme Court will,
and must, recount the wisdom, scholarship, and technical
brilliance that Justice Scalia brought to the Court. His
insistence on demanding standards shaped the work of the
Court in its private discussions, its oral arguments, and
its written opinions. Yet these historic achievements are
all the more impressive and compelling because the
foundations of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence, the driving
force in all his work, and his powerful personality were
shaped by an unyielding commitment to the Constitution of
the United States and to the highest ethical and moral
standards. ...
Justice Stephen Breyer, just a few weeks ago, stated
this about the passing of Justice Scalia, ``We'll miss
him, but we'll do our work. For the most part, it will not
change.'' ...
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, last month we all learned
with great sadness of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing
after nearly 30 years on the Court. He would have turned
80 years old on Friday, March 11.
In recent weeks, foremost on people's minds as they
reflect on Justice Scalia's legacy and his life is his
dedication to the letter of the law, his respect for
constitutional and statutory text, his view that the U.S.
Constitution is a sacred document which must be read and
adhered to.
His decisions and opinions were aimed to follow the
Constitution wherever it took him, even if it may not have
been to a place where he would agree politically. Justice
Scalia not only understood the importance of not
legislating from the bench, but he also cared deeply about
the lesson being taught by the work of the Court. Through
his writings, his opinions, including his dissents, he
taught us great lessons. ...
He wrote many opinions arguing for exactly what I am
saying: Read the clear language that is at issue--either
the Constitution or a statute or whatever is at issue. He
wrote opinions against what before his time was rampant
use of so-called legislative history, looking at the
history of how a law was passed really to give people
fodder to make it up as they go along and reach almost any
conclusion and interpretation they want to. Justice Scalia
taught us--and he had a real impact on the Court through
his decisions--that we need an unwavering commitment to
principle and respect to statutory text as written.
As he often said in so many different ways,
``Legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory
text is clear.'' In one opinion he noted that ``if one
were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the
whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one
could hardly find a more promising candidate than
legislative history.'' ...
The Court has strayed from Justice Scalia's proper
philosophy of actually reading the Constitution and
reading statutory text and applying it as written. So many
Louisianans feel as I do; that they are making it up, in
many cases, as they go along; that they are legislating
from the bench; that they are using clever techniques,
such as looking to legislative history--something Justice
Scalia, as I noted, railed against--as ammunition to get
to whatever endpoint they desire to get to. That is not
the role of any court, certainly not the role of the
Supreme Court. ...
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember
Justice Antonin Scalia and thank him for his service to
the Supreme Court and the country.
Justice Scalia was a first-generation American, and his
life was a testament to the American dream. A student of
history and the law, Antonin Scalia had a commitment to
public service that culminated in his appointment as an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President Ronald
Reagan in 1986.
Justice Scalia served on the Court for almost 30 years
and in that time made many important contributions to our
legal system. While he had firm convictions, he also loved
people and never let ideas get in the way of friendship,
most notably with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Senator Margaret Chase Smith once said, ``Public service
must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It
must be a complete dedication to the people and to the
nation.''
Justice Scalia believed in that complete dedication. Our
thoughts and prayers remain with his family at this time,
and we thank him and them for his service.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Nation has lost one of
the greatest Justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court,
Antonin Scalia. My condolences and prayers go out to his
wife of 55 years, Maureen, his 9 children, and 36
grandchildren.
My thought is that Justice Scalia's greatness was
founded on the power of his ideas. His defense of those
founding principles of America at the highest intellectual
level is unprecedented, to my knowledge, in the United
States. Over his career, he moved the legal world. As a
young lawyer out of law school, I remember what the trends
were and how Justice Scalia relentlessly, intellectually,
aggressively, and soundly drove the message that many of
the ideas that are out there today are inconsistent with
the rule of law and the American tradition.
The trend was relentlessly toward activism. Judges were
praised if they advanced the law--not when they followed
the law, or served under the law, or the Constitution, but
if they advanced it. By advancing it, what that really
means is you change it. If you advance it, it means the
legislature hadn't passed something that you would like,
or the Constitution doesn't advance an idea that you like,
then you figure out a way to reinterpret the meaning of
the words so it says what you would like it to say and
what you wish the legislature had passed.
One of the bogus ideas at that time--you don't hear much
about it anymore, but it was current, and it was
mainstream then--was that the ink-stained parchment, well
over 200 years old and right over in the Archives
Building, was alive. Our Constitution, they said, was a
living document.
Well, how ridiculous is that? The judges said that the
Constitution gave them the power to update it, advance it,
and make it say what they wanted it to say. They even
contended that it was the duty of the judge, not just the
privilege of the judge, to advance the words of the
Constitution. Justice Scalia saw this as a direct threat,
and he understood at the most fundamental level who was
threatened by it, and that was ``we the people.''
You know how the Constitution begins with ``We the
People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare ... do ordain and establish''? Well,
friends and colleagues, we establish this Constitution,
the one we have, not the one some judge would like it to
be or some politician would like it to be but the one we
have.
He boldly criticized the idea that a mere five judges--
it just takes five out of nine--with lifetime appointments
are totally unaccountable to the American people. We are
prohibited from even reducing their pay, which I support
because we want an independent judiciary. ...
Judges need to know they are given independence and a
lifetime appointment because we trust them to serve under
the Constitution and not above it. They serve under the
laws duly passed by the elected representatives of the
people of the United States, not above those laws. They
were not given the power to set policies that they would
like to set no matter how strongly they feel about it.
That is not what they have been given to do. He boldly
criticized those ideas and those individuals and didn't
mind saying it in plain words: You are setting policy, you
are not following the law.
I would say that Professor Van Aylstyne--while at
William & Mary or Duke--had a great quote about this. He
said, ``If you really honor the Constitution, if you
really respect the Constitution, you will reinforce it as
it is written whether you like it or not.''
If judges today can twist the Constitution to make it
say something it was not intended to mean, how might a new
Court--five judges in a new age a decade or two from now--
reinterpret the words to advance an agenda during that
time? Isn't that a blow to the very concept of the
democratic republic we have? I think so.
I will tell you that this has been a long and tough
intellectual battle. You don't hear many people say that
paper document over in the Archives is a living thing. Of
course it is not a living thing. It is a contract. The
American people have a contract with their government.
They gave it certain powers and reserved certain powers
for themselves. They reserved certain powers for their
States, and the Federal Government is a government with
limited power. This is absolutely, undeniably fundamental,
and people don't fully understand it today. ...
One of the things that I think is very unfortunate is
that judges have created an incredible amount of law that
is contrary to common sense in the area of religion in the
public life of America. Many of these cases are very
confusing. But Justice Scalia, in a series of cases where
he wrote the majority opinion, or wrote the dissent, or
wrote concurring opinions, applied the principles of the
Constitution as they were intended to lay out a lawful and
commonsense framework for faith in the public square. I
think that is a significant achievement.
When Chief Justice Roberts came before our committee for
confirmation, I remember telling him:
Sir, I would like you to try to clear up and bring some
common sense to the expression of faith. You have a right
to free speech in America, you have a right to the free
exercise of religion under the Constitution, so how has it
gotten around that you can be protected more in filthy
speech than you can be protected in religious speech?
So as I said, Justice Scalia issued a series of opinions
that were important on this subject. For example, in 1992,
the Supreme Court decided Lee v. Weisman. This case
involved a challenge to a Rhode Island public school
policy that permitted a member of the clergy to deliver
prayers at middle school graduation ceremonies. In this
instance, a rabbi had delivered a prayer at one such
ceremony, and one of the families in attendance that
objected brought suit, alleging that the school's policy
permitting prayer at graduation was a violation of the
First Amendment's establishment clause. By a vote of 5 to
4, the Supreme Court concluded that the school's policy
violated the establishment clause. Justice Scalia
dissented. He wrote:
In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits
invocations and benedictions at public school graduation
ceremonies, the Court--with nary a mention that it is
doing so--lays waste a tradition that is as old as public
school graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a
component of an even more longstanding American tradition
of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations
generally.
Two years later, the Supreme Court decided Board of
Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v.
Grumet. This case involved a challenge to a New York
statute that tracked village boundaries to create a public
school district for practitioners of a strict form of
Judaism known as Satmar Hasidim. By a vote of 6 to 3, the
Court concluded that the government had drawn political
boundaries on the basis of religious faith in violation of
the First Amendment's establishment clause. Justice Scalia
dissented. He wrote:
The Founding Fathers would be astonished to find that
the Establishment Clause--which they designed to insure
that no one powerful sect or combination of sects could
use political or governmental power to punish dissenters,
has been employed to prohibit characteristically and
admirably American accommodation of the religious
practices--or more precisely, cultural peculiarities--of a
tiny minority sect. ... Once this Court has abandoned text
and history as guides, nothing prevents it from calling
religious toleration the establishment of religion.
Ten years later, in 2004, the Supreme Court decided
Locke v. Davey. In this case, a student challenged a
Washington State statute which created a scholarship for
students enrolled ``at least half time in an eligible
postsecondary institution in the state of Washington,''
but excluded from eligibility for this scholarship
students seeking degrees in devotional theology. A student
sued to enjoin Washington from refusing to award him a
scholarship. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court upheld
the statute. Justice Scalia dissented. He wrote that:
When the State makes a public benefit generally
available, that benefit becomes part of the baseline
against which burdens on religion are measured; and when
the State withholds that benefit from some individuals
solely on the basis of religion, it violates the Free
Exercise Clause no less than if it had imposed a special
tax. That is precisely what the State of Washington has
done here. It has created a generally available public
benefit, whose receipt is conditioned only on academic
performance, income, and attendance at an accredited
school. It has then carved out a solitary course of study
for exclusion: theology.
The next year, the Supreme Court decided McCreary County
v. ACLU of Kentucky. This case involved a challenge to the
placement of the Ten Commandments on the walls inside two
Kentucky courthouses. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme
Court held that the placement of the Ten Commandments
inside of courthouses was a violation of the First
Amendment's establishment clause. Justice Scalia
dissented. He wrote that:
Historical practices demonstrate that there is a
distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator
and the establishment of a religion. The former is, as
Marsh v. Chambers put it, ``a tolerable acknowledgment of
beliefs widely held among the people of this country.''
The three most popular religions in the United States,
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--which combined account
for 97.7% of all believers--are monotheistic. All of them,
moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten
Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine
prescriptions for a virtuous life. Publicly honoring the
Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as
discriminating against other religions is concerned, from
publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized
across such a broad and diverse range of the population--
from Christians to Muslims--that they cannot be reasonably
understood as a government endorsement of a particular
religious viewpoint.
More recently in 2014, Justice Scalia dissented from a
denial of certiorari in the case of Elmbrook School
District v. Doe. In this case, the entire Seventh Circuit,
over three dissents, held that a suburban Milwaukee public
high school district violated the establishment clause of
the First Amendment by holding its graduation in a
nondenominational church. Justice Scalia wrote that:
Some there are--many, perhaps--who are offended by
public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a
personal matter; if it must be given external
manifestation, that should not occur in public places
where others may be offended. I can understand that
attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public
of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially
annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs
while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal
bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.
In this case, at the request of the student bodies of
the two relevant schools, the Elmbrook School District
decided to hold its high-school graduation ceremonies at
Elmbrook Church, a nondenominational Christian house of
worship. The students of the first school to move its
ceremonies preferred that site to what had been the usual
venue, the school's gymnasium, which was cramped, hot, and
uncomfortable. The church offered more space, air
conditioning, and cushioned seating. No one disputes that
the church was chosen only because of these amenities.
In this case, it is beyond dispute that no religious
exercise whatever occurred. At most, respondents complain
that they took offense at being in a religious place. It
bears emphasis that the original understanding of the kind
of coercion that the Establishment Clause condemns was far
narrower than the sort of peer-pressure coercion that this
Court has recently held unconstitutional.
Although many of his dissents were memorable, not all of
Justice Scalia's notable opinions on religion in public
life were issued in dissent. In 1995, Justice Scalia wrote
the opinion for the Court in Capitol Square Review and
Advisory Board v. Pinette, where the Court rejected an
establishment clause challenge to the Christmas season
display of an unattended Latin cross in a plaza next to
the Ohio State Capitol. Writing for the Court, Justice
Scalia said:
Respondents' religious display in Capitol Square was
private expression. Our precedent establishes that private
religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan,
is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as
secular private expression. Indeed, in Anglo-American
history, at least, government suppression of speech has so
commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that
a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet
without the prince.
Just last term, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the
Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, a case about
accommodation on the basis of religion in the employment
environment. In this case, a Muslim individual who wore a
head scarf as part of her religious observance applied for
a job at a clothing retailer, but was not hired due to the
company's policy, which prohibited employees from wearing
``caps.'' In reversing the court of appeals in favor of
the applicant, Justice Scalia wrote that:
Congress defined ``religion'' for Title VII purposes as
``including all aspects of religious observance and
practice, as well as belief.'' Thus, religious practice is
one of the protected characteristics that cannot be
accorded disparate treatment and must be accommodated.
As we see, these opinions by Justice Scalia involve
parties of varied faiths--Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Regardless of the identity of the party, Justice Scalia's
opinions on religion in public life consistently evidence
a deep respect for the unique history of religious
pluralism in this country and a heartfelt appreciation for
its positive impact across the landscape of the Nation.
While some may say his opinions are not consistent, I
disagree. Religion in American life is an important and
complex subject. Judges must think carefully but not
abandon common sense as so many opinions have. Justice
Scalia saw limits on free exercise of religion when it
came to the contention, for example, that one's religion
required the use of drugs that a State had declared
illegal.
So this is an important area that needs to be cleared up
so that we can bring some reality to the question of the
expression of religious conviction in public life. Because
the Constitution says we shall not establish a religion--
Congress shall not establish a religion. It doesn't say
States couldn't establish a religion; it says Congress
can't establish a religion. It also says ``nor shall
Congress prohibit the free exercise thereof.'' So you
can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.
I think we have forgotten the free exercise clause and
over-interpreted the establishment of religion. Some
States at the time had established religions. Most of the
countries in Europe had a religion that they put in law
for their country, and we said, ``No, we are not going to
establish any religion here. You have the right to
exercise your religious faith as you choose.''
Madison and Jefferson particularly believed it was
absolutely unacceptable for this government to tell people
how to relate to that person they considered to be their
creator. That was a personal relationship that ought to be
respected and the government ought to have no role in it.
Like Madison and Jefferson, Justice Scalia, too,
believed in American exceptionalism. Indeed, he was truly
exceptional. Although he will be impossible to replace,
his seat on the Supreme Court will eventually be filled by
the next President. After that nominee is confirmed, his
or her decisions will likely impact our Nation for the
next 30 years and far beyond. Next year, when we debate
this eventual nominee's qualifications to assume Justice
Scalia's seat, we need look no further than his own words
for wisdom to guide us as we consider our decision. In no
uncertain terms, Justice Scalia's McCreary County dissent
reminds us that:
What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship
of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be
grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what
prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that--thumbs
up or thumbs down--as their personal preferences dictate.
That is the governing principle that Justice Scalia
abided by--unwavering commitment to the rule of law even
when reaching the outcome that the law dictated did not
align with his policy preferences. This--above all
things--is the duty of a judge or Justice, and it is a
principle that has fallen by the wayside far too often in
recent years. It is imperative that we keep these words in
mind when we consider appointments not only to the Supreme
Court, but all lifetime appointments to the Federal
judiciary.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in his sleep. He
was an enduring legacy of the Reagan administration and
the conservative standard not only on the Supreme Court
but for the entire American judicial community.
History will remember Antonin Scalia as a stalwart
defender of the Constitution and a brilliant legal mind.
He authored the majority opinion on countless rulings of
the Court, preserving and protecting our Nation's founding
principles. His intellectual honesty, as well as his
humor, will be greatly missed.
Justice Scalia played a pivotal role in the shaping of
constitutional interpretation throughout his 30-year
tenure on the Supreme Court. He had within him a fervor
for law and order; yet he demonstrated a warmth that
resonated with many colleagues on both sides of the
political divide.
Antonin Scalia built meaningful relationships across
that divide which were indicative of the strength of his
character. Hadley Arkes, an expert in constitutional law,
said that Justice Scalia was able to ``find something
redeeming and likeable in just about everyone he met,
regardless of politics.'' This was no doubt a reflection
of his strong Christian background and tremendous
character.
You can learn the character of a man best by listening
to how those who knew him speak of him. Former colleagues
and intellectual adversaries alike are unrestrained in
their kind words for Justice Scalia.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke fondly of the
late Justice, saying: ``Nino sparkled with enthusiasm,
energy, sense of humor, insight, and seriousness of
purpose--the very qualities that I and his other
colleagues have benefited from in more recent years.''
Justice Thomas described Antonin Scalia as a patriot
with a true calling for interpreting the Constitution and
noted that their relationship flourished based on that
common interest. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also
described their relationship as close and ``how blessed
she was to have a friend of such brilliance, high spirits,
and quick wit.''
Antonin Scalia had a positive impact on so many lives as
a Justice, a colleague, a father, and a friend. His
demeanor was just and fair, but marked with personality
and humor. Late Justice Scalia was a staunch defender of
the Constitution, rendering unbiased opinions and a unique
perspective.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I honor the late
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin
Scalia.
During his many years of serving our country, Justice
Scalia proved to be a great defender of our constitutional
liberties. Regardless of one's politics, it is undeniable
that Justice Scalia was a true patriot whose passion for
upholding our American principles was matched only by his
eloquence and intellect.
Justice Scalia's record of public service stretched from
the time President Nixon appointed him as General Counsel
of the Office of Telecommunications Policy in 1971 to when
President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court in 1986, where he served until his death
in February 2016. Before and intermingled during this
service, Justice Scalia also served as an extremely
talented attorney in private practice, a brilliant law
professor, including for my alma mater Tulane Law School
in its summer programs, and an effective leader in the
U.S. Justice Department at a number of levels.
One of the single most memorable events in my time in
the Senate was when Justice Scalia agreed to visit with
and speak to me and my staff. His presence and authority
impressed all of us and, as he discussed a number of
topics including the importance of protecting our
constitutional rights; I admit to being awestruck. It was
a great honor to hear directly from one of the most
significant jurists in American history, and I know my
staff remember that day as clearly as I do.
One thing that distinguished Justice Scalia was not
necessarily what he did, but what he chose not to do. As a
staunch adherent of limited, constitutional government, on
numerous occasions, he advocated for the Court to separate
itself from political fights or matters involving
individuals who are free to decide their own fate.
Originalism, the theory that the clear meaning given to
words in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers should
be honored, was prevalent in Justice Scalia's decisions.
He abhorred judicial activism, and he correctly understood
that the place for instituting laws was in the
legislature, where the will of the people is
democratically represented.
I know that Justice Scalia will also be remembered for
his upbeat nature, affability, charm, and wit. At the
heart of his larger-than-life personality was an educator,
a person who not only ruled on the law, but also took the
opportunity to inform readers of his opinions about the
history behind the decisions.
I commend his lifetime commitment as a public servant
and hope his example will inspire us all as we work to
respect the Constitution and protect the freedoms of all
Americans. We would be wise to follow Justice Scalia's
lead in remembering America's founding principles as we
are deciding matters of the future.
I also wish to express our deepest condolences to his
wife, Maureen, and to the rest of his family. I am honored
to join with the rest of the U.S. Senate in celebrating
the wonderful memory and lasting legacy of Justice Antonin
Scalia.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in
expressing the deepest respect and admiration for Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Our country has lost a
brilliant, principled, and determined jurist.
For three decades, Justice Scalia invigorated the
Supreme Court, becoming an icon for constitutional
originalism. He had a remarkable ability to espouse legal
theory with memorable turns of phrase, and he could expose
gaps in opposing opinions with laserlike precision. He did
not fear differences of opinion but embraced the
intellectual challenge that conflicting viewpoints could
offer. The enduring friendships he made with those across
the ideological spectrum are a true testament to his
indomitable scholarship.
Antonin Scalia had a distinguished career in law,
academia, and public service before being confirmed to the
DC Circuit and later the Supreme Court. The many accolades
and achievements of his biography are well known. But
Antonin, fondly known as ``Nino,'' was much more than an
extraordinary legal mind. He was man of faith and family,
raising nine children with his wife, Maureen.
His son, Christopher, wrote this in the Washington Post
following his father's death: ``As proud as we are of his
legacy as a jurist, of course it's his presence in our
personal lives that we'll miss the most.'' To his
children, he was a loving father who took them to Sunday
mass, listened to Bach in his study, and never shied away
from playfulness at the dinner table.
We will remember Justice Scalia in my home State of
Mississippi, where we were honored to host him over the
years. We shared with him our variety of Southern
hospitality during his regular visits to the Magnolia
State in pursuit of duck, deer, and turkey. When he wasn't
outdoors, he spent time educating the public, especially
college students, delivering thought-provoking lectures at
the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State
University, the University of Southern Mississippi,
William Carey University, and MUW.
Justice Scalia's unanimous confirmation as the first
Italian-American Justice was a historic moment for the
Supreme Court and the beginning of a legendary tenure that
will have a profound effect for generations to come. He
leaves a vibrant legacy--perhaps most notably
characterized by his steadfast protection of the
Constitution as the Framers intended it. As I said shortly
after learning the news of his death, ``I like to think
Antonin Scalia and James Madison are having the damnedest
visit right now.''
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, today we honor the life and
public service of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
whose passing signifies a great loss for our country.
Justice Scalia was a devoted family man, scholar, and
tireless public servant. He faithfully served Nevadans and
all Americans for over 29 years on our Nation's highest
Court. My thoughts and prayers continue to go out to his
wife, Maureen, and the entire Scalia family.
Born on March 11, 1936, to Salvatore and Catherine
Scalia, Justice Scalia was a disciplined, intellectual
conservative from a young age. A diligent student who
studied his way to become valedictorian at Georgetown
University and graduating magna cum laude at Harvard Law
School, Justice Scalia began his legal career in
Cleveland, OH, in 1961. After practicing law for 6 years
in Cleveland, Justice Scalia accepted a position teaching
administrative law at the University of Virginia.
Justice Scalia entered public service in 1972, during
which he served as General Counsel for the Office of
Telecommunications Policy and Chairman of the
Administrative Conference of the United States. In these
positions, he expanded his expertise in administrative
law, a topic that interested him throughout his career. In
1974 Justice Scalia became the Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Legal Counsel. It was here that Justice
Scalia would argue and later win his first case before the
U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1982 President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Scalia
to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Justice Scalia's originalist mindset, keen perception, and
witty writing caught the attention of President Reagan,
making Justice Scalia a top prospect to fill a potential
Supreme Court vacancy. In 1986, Justice Scalia was
confirmed by the Senate upon the retirement of Chief
Justice Warren Burger. As a Supreme Court Justice, Justice
Scalia would dramatically change the Court through his
powerful dissents and sharp oral arguments.
Throughout his over 30-year tenure on the bench, Justice
Scalia never strayed from his conservative principles and
steadfast dedication to upholding the Constitution. His
prominent leadership and originalist philosophy will never
be forgotten as his legacy will live on through
generations. I ask my colleagues and all Nevadans to join
me today in remembering and celebrating the life of
Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, Antonin Scalia was one of the
greatest Supreme Court Justices in the history of our
country. A lion of the law, Justice Scalia spent his
tenure on the bench championing federalism, the separation
of powers, and our fundamental liberties. He was a
passionate defender of the Constitution--not the
Constitution as it has been contorted and revised by
generations of activist Justices, but the Constitution as
it was understood by the people who ratified it and made
it the law of the land. Antonin Scalia understood that if
the Constitution's meaning was not grounded in its text,
history, and structure, but could instead be revised by
judicial fiat, then the people were no longer sovereign.
No longer would the Nation be governed by law, which
expresses the will of the people; it would be governed by,
as Justice Scalia put it, ``an unelected committee of
nine.'' This, he believed, ``robs the People of the most
important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.''
As one of the leading advocates of this restrained
judicial philosophy, Justice Scalia became an intellectual
force on the Court, where he authored a number of
noteworthy majority opinions. In 1997, for example, Scalia
wrote the opinion in Printz v. United States, one of the
few cases in the last century where the Supreme Court has
actually limited the Federal Government's power to coerce
the States. In 2001 in Kyllo v. United States, he led the
Court in holding that the Fourth Amendment requires the
government to obtain a warrant before using high-tech
equipment to invade the sanctity of the home. In 2008 he
penned the lead opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller,
which finally recognized the people's individual right
under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
As important as these majority opinions were, though,
Justice Scalia was even better known for his dissents, in
which he let his true personality--jovial, acerbic, and
witty--fully shine through. Justice Scalia understood that
changing the languishing legal culture would take drastic
measures, so he wrote his dissents with a specific target
in mind: law students. His aim? To delight their senses
and engage their brains. To this end, he liberally
employed colorful metaphors, pithy phrases, and biting
logic; and he mercilessly, yet playfully, exposed the
abundant flaws in the writing and reasoning of other
Justices. Pure applesauce. Jiggery-pokery. Argle-bargle.
If you squinted hard enough, you could almost convince
yourself that G.K. Chesterton had taken a seat on the
Supreme Court.
But perhaps the highest compliment I can pay to Justice
Scalia is this: Several of his key opinions went against
some of his staunchest supporters--and they still loved
him. Why is that?
The answer is simple: Even in disagreement, Justice
Scalia's supporters had confidence that he did not make up
his mind by reading the political tea leaves, by voting
lockstep with ideological cohorts, or by working his way
backward from a desired end to whatever means was
necessary to reach that end. Rather, he actually attempted
to interpret the law; that is, he consistently did his
best to come to a conclusion based on the only items that
make a Supreme Court opinion valid in the first place:
text and logic.
You don't have to take my word on this, though. Unlike
many in our modern society who espouse ``diversity'' yet
surround themselves with ideological yes-men, Justice
Scalia actively sought out opposing views. His typical
practice was to hire at least one ``liberal'' law clerk
per term so that he would always have someone calling him
out for unexpected mistakes and weaknesses. In the wake of
Justice Scalia's passing, one of those clerks--a self-
identified liberal--wrote the following:
If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for
Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political
outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the
words on the page took him. More than any one opinion,
this will be his lasting contribution to legal thought.
Whatever our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to
engage on his terms--textual analysis and original
meaning. He forced us all to acknowledge that words cannot
mean anything we want them to mean; that we have to impose
a degree of discipline on our thinking. A discipline I
value to this day.
I first met Justice Scalia in 1996, when I was serving
as a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who
was a judicial gamechanger in his own right. I had the
good fortune of knowing Justice Scalia personally for 20
years. He was brilliant, passionate, and full of humor. He
adored his wife, Maureen; his 9 children; and his 36
grandchildren. He had a zest for life. He relished anchovy
pizzas at A.V. Ristorante Italiano, where he would take
his law clerks and the clerks of other Justices. Over the
decades, Justice Scalia inspired and mentored a generation
of conservatives on the bench and in legal academia.
Any advocate who stood before Justice Scalia, as I was
privileged to do nine times, knew to expect withering
questions that would cut to the quick of the case. When he
was with you--when he believed the law was on your side--
he was ferociously with you. When he was against you, he
would relentlessly expose the flaws in your case.
President Ronald Reagan could not have picked a better
person to exemplify the true, nonpartisan role of a judge.
A philosopher-king Justice Scalia was not. Rather, he
showed the world, with his trademark wit and impassioned
personality, what a legitimate, limited, and principled
judiciary would actually look like. An incomparable
writer, Justice Scalia's legacy will live on for
generations. He wasn't perfect, but he was close. What his
supporters--myself included--treasured especially was the
rock-solid ground he gave us on which to expect so much
more from everyone else. In doing so, he, along with Chief
Justice Rehnquist and others, helped spark a revolution on
a Court where politics and power had been the only
guideposts for decisionmaking for far too long. That, more
than anything else, is Justice Scalia's great contribution
to the Nation and will be his steadfast legacy.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to discuss the
vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia. Those of us who knew the late Justice well
are still mourning the loss of a dear friend, and the
Nation is feeling the loss of one of the greatest jurists
in its history. We will never find a true replacement for
Justice Scalia, only a successor to his legacy. ...
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. GRASSLEY. ... This fundamental feature of our
republic is critical to preserving liberty. The temptation
to apply their own views rather than the Constitution has
always lurked among the Justices. This led to the Dred
Scott decision. It led to striking down many economic
regulations early in the last century. And Americans know
all too well in recent decades that the Supreme Court has
done this regularly. Justice Scalia believed that to
ensure objectivity rather than subjectivity in judicial
decisionmaking, the Constitution must be read according to
its text and its original meaning as understood at the
time those words were written.
The Constitution is law, and it has meaning. Otherwise,
what the Court offers is merely politics, masquerading as
constitutional law. Justice Scalia wrote that the rule of
law is a law of rules. Law is not Justices reading their
own policy preferences into the Constitution. It is not a
multifactor balancing test untethered to the text. We all
know that Justices apply these balancing tests to reach
their preferred policy results.
The Court is not, and should not, be engaged in a
continuing Constitutional Convention designed to update
our founding document to conform with the Justices'
personal policy preference. The Constitution is not a
living document. The danger with any Justice who believes
they are entitled to ``update'' the Constitution is that
they will always update it to conform with their own
views. That is not the appropriate role of a Justice. As
Justice Scalia put it, ``The-times-they-are-a-changin' is
a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.'' ...
A Justice is to question assumptions and apply rigorous
scrutiny to the arguments the parties advance, as did
Justice Scalia. ...
Chief Justice Warren was infamous for asking, ``Is it
just? Is it fair?'' without any reference to law, when he
voted.
Justice Scalia's entire tenure on the Court was devoted
to ending this misplaced and improper approach. In
reality, a Justice is no more entitled to force another
American to adhere to his or her own moral views or life
experiences than any other ordinary American. ...
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Mr. ROUNDS. ... Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who
was one of our Nation's strongest defenders of our
Constitution, will be difficult. For almost 30 years, with
his brilliant legal mind and animated character, he
fiercely fought against judicial activism from the bench.
He will be greatly missed by not only his family and loved
ones but by all Americans who shared his core conservative
values and beliefs. ...
I have determined that my benchmark for the next Supreme
Court Justice will be Justice Scalia himself. Scalia's
strict interpretation of the Constitution and deference to
States' rights set a gold standard by which his
replacement should be measured. ...
In another example, a woman from Estelline wrote saying:
``Hearing of the passing of Justice Scalia was
heartbreaking news. ...''
We owe it to Justice Scalia, our judicial system, and
the Constitution to uphold the highest standards when
determining our next Supreme Court Justice. ...
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Mr. CORNYN. ... We recall Justice Scalia as somebody who
believed that the words of the Constitution mattered
greatly, and he served on the Court for almost 30 years.
Justice Scalia was what was sometimes called an
originalist. In other words, he believed the Court had an
obligation to apply the Constitution and the law as
written, not based on some substituted value judgment for
what perhaps the unelected, lifetime-tenured judges would
have preferred in terms of policy. That is not their role.
They don't stand for election. It is our role as the
policymakers in the political branches who do stand for
election--and thus give the American people a chance to
voice their pleasure or displeasure, as the case may be,
with the direction that we perhaps take the country when
it comes to policy. But that is not a role the Supreme
Court should play. ...
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Mr. CARDIN. ... The late Justice Scalia noted accurately
that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires
discrimination against women; but there is nothing in the
Constitution that protects discrimination based upon
gender. We can do a better job with fundamental changes.
...
Proceedings in the
House of Representatives
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last week our Nation lost an
incredible man and jurist: Justice Antonin Scalia.
As a steadfast defender of the rule of law, Antonin
Scalia was a pillar of the Supreme Court for nearly 30
years. He was a man of God and a champion of religious
freedom.
In a recent speech, Justice Scalia reflected on the role
of faith in society. While discussing his time in Rome in
the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, he recalled watching
President Bush ask God to bless our Nation and a later
conversation he had with a jurist from a different country
who expressed his own desire for his nation's leader to be
able to publicly evoke God's name during a time of
national crisis, as it was forbidden.
This moving speech serves as a reminder of the
importance of fighting for our basic liberties that we
hold so dearly. Justice Scalia, who consistently
demonstrated a deep understanding of what our Founding
Fathers intended, was a fierce and loyal leader in this
fight.
It was through his strong adherence to our Constitution,
his sharp analytical mind, and his unwillingness to
compromise his principles that made him a brilliant
jurist; though it was his unreserved vitality and
unwavering love for his country that made him a widely
admired and beloved friend to his supporters and
adversaries alike.
I had a chance to meet Justice Scalia a couple of
different times and hear him and even talk with him and
ask him questions. Indeed, I was blessed by that.
I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to his
family. He will certainly be missed by our Nation.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 620
Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow
of the death of the Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Resolved, That the House tenders its deep sympathy to
the members of the family of the late Associate Justice in
their bereavement.
Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions
to the Senate and to the Supreme Court and transmit a copy
of the same to the family of the late Associate Justice.
Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn
as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late
Associate Justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, we are adopting this
resolution today in honor of Justice Antonin Gregory
Scalia.
His passion, his eloquence, his intelligence, and,
indeed, his courageous defense of our Constitution was
unmatched. He exemplified how principles should be
practiced and served as an irreplaceable beacon and
guardian of federalism, of the separation of powers, and
of liberty throughout his service on the bench.
Our country has not only lost a great man but a profound
man, a principled man, and a good man.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today is our
first opportunity to remember and honor the life and
legacy of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, with a
further tribute tonight by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock
of Virginia.
I am grateful for Justice Scalia's lifetime of service
to our country and his dedication to protecting and
defending the Constitution. In the nearly three decades he
served on the Supreme Court, he was renowned for his
brilliant opinion, sharp wit, and engaging debate with
attorneys.
His dedication to a strict interpretation of the
Constitution never wavered, and he was beloved by his
colleagues on the Court. He promoted the real
constitutional intent, for judges to interpret the law,
not legislating undermining democracy.
Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and
confirmed unanimously by the Senate, Justice Scalia was
the Court's voice for opinions that upheld conservative
values, such as the District of Columbia v. Heller,
defending the right to bear arms by the Second Amendment.
Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Maureen,
their children, and grandchildren.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and may the
President, by his actions, never forget September 11 in
the global war on terrorism.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poliquin). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this Special Order is meant
to honor the life and three decades of service of
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin
Scalia.
Justice Scalia was a person of great joy, great
intellect, great wit, and great faith. Our Nation suffered
a tremendous loss on February 13 with the passing of
Justice Antonin Scalia.
My husband Chip and I, my parents, and our children are
deeply saddened by the passing of our friend, our
neighbor, and, of course, a legal legend. He was a
courageous advocate for the rule of law and the
Constitution.
Justice Scalia and his wife, Maureen, raised an
incredible family of 9 children and 36 grandchildren, and
we have been so privileged to know and love them.
Justice Scalia was both a larger-than-life Justice, who
leaves a profound legacy in the law, as well as a down-to-
earth husband, father, grandfather, and absolutely
delightful friend who loved his Lord and God, his wife and
family, the law, the opera, his country, hunting, and a
good laugh.
We have all heard the stories of his friendship across
the ideological spectrum, none more famous than his
friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice
Scalia explained that if you can't disagree ardently with
your colleagues about some issues of law and yet
personally still be friends, you should get another job,
for Pete's sake.
Justice Ginsburg explained: ``As annoyed as you might be
about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so
amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say
`I'm glad that he's my friend or he's my colleague.'''
Justice Scalia was a shining example of fidelity, as he
was ever-faithful to his oath to the law, to his family,
and to his God.
He was celebrated by so many in the legal community. He
was a revered mentor to the dozens and dozens of clerks
who lined the steps of the Supreme Court last Friday in
his honor. Every one of them, no doubt, had a story that
had profound legal discussions in it but also ended with a
good laugh.
He simply will be irreplaceable and leaves a legacy that
will be consequential, discussed, and debated for the
ages.
On the personal front, his life was also a great and
consequential life. Justice Scalia married his wife of
over 55 years, Maureen, in 1960. They were set up on a
blind date. He told one author that Maureen was ``the
product of the best decision I ever made.''
His nine children--nine, how appropriate for a Supreme
Court Justice--were split five and four, five boys, four
girls. They became lawyers, a priest, a poet, an Army
major, and parents themselves of those wonderful 36
grandchildren.
Justice Scalia proudly gave the lion's share of the
credit for raising this large brood to the resourceful,
talented, and very smart love of his life, Maureen, who,
as her son Paul said in the homily, matched him at every
step. Justice Scalia said about his children, ``and
there's not a dullard in the bunch.''
His son, Father Paul Scalia, was the celebrant for his
father's beautiful funeral mass with the assistance of
dozens of priests at the Basilica of the National Shrine
of the Immaculate Conception this past Saturday.
Father Paul began his moving homily saying:
We are gathered here because of one man, a man known
personally to many of us, known only by reputation to many
more; a man loved by many, scorned by others; a man known
for great controversy and for great compassion. That man,
of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.
Father Paul continued: ``In the past week, many have
recounted what Dad did for them. But here today we reflect
what God did for Dad, how He blessed him.''
Father Paul explained how his father understood that the
deeper he went into his Catholic faith, the better a
citizen and public servant he became. That faith now
inspires his children and grandchildren and generations to
come of the Scalia family and the so many lives he touched
and influenced.
Justice Scalia also had a rich tenor voice that
intimidated many who came before the Court in front of
him, but as his son Christopher explained, it was also
perfect for reading stories to his grandchildren. His
rendition of ``The Night Before Christmas'' was an annual
tradition. He also led many sing-alongs at parties, played
the piano, and also that singing would go on and on for
their long car rides.
Pictures with his children and grandchildren cover the
walls and the end tables and the piano of the Scalia home,
and in any picture with one or more of those children or
grandchildren or with his beloved Maureen, Justice Scalia
would always be beaming whenever he was around his family.
An only child himself, he loved that he gave his
children the gift of many brothers and sisters. No doubt
that is a great solace to all of them now, as well as a
source of great strength and support for their mother.
May God bless Justice Antonin Scalia, a good and
faithful son, and may God bless his wife, Maureen, and
their entire family, and the scores and scores of their
friends and his colleagues and the millions more of
admirers, and may God bless the country that he so loved.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank
Congresswoman Comstock for leading this tribute to Justice
Scalia.
The Nation's legal lights faded recently with the loss
of the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but
they will not be dimmed for long, for Justice Scalia left
a legacy of illumination that will continue far beyond his
mortal years.
Although Justice Scalia is no longer with us on Earth,
his cogent, witty, and plain-spoken writings will continue
to educate law students and good citizens everywhere for
centuries to come.
Justice Scalia was no mere legal technician. He was a
deep thinker who had an uncommon knack for crystallizing
powerful ideas into trenchant, lasting prose. The journey
on which he led his readers was always a joy, always
compelling, because Justice Scalia always made clear where
the path started.
He once said: ``More important than your obligation to
follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your
obligation to form your conscience correctly.'' For
Justice Scalia, as with morality, so it was with the law.
Justice Scalia always made sure he built his argument on a
solid foundation: the Constitution, the supreme law of the
land.
As a strong defender of the rule of law, he was a gentle
legal giant. Like all great educators, Justice Scalia was
respectful of others, regardless of their differing views.
``I attack ideas,'' he once said. ``I don't attack people.
And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if
you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day
job.'' That is a life lesson for all of us who engage in
any debates and the ideas that undergird them.
In that spirit, Justice Scalia often said: ``My best
buddy on the Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has always
been,'' and Justice Ginsburg's moving tribute to her own
best buddy should reduce every bitter partisan to tears.
Throughout his life, Justice Scalia correctly inveighed
against the notion of a living Constitution, the misguided
idea that the Constitution's text and original meaning
somehow shifted this way and that with changes in popular
attitudes.
Justice Scalia said:
That's the argument of constitutional flexibility and it
goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200
years old, and societies change. It has to change with
society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle
and break. But ... the Constitution is not a living
organism; it is a legal document. It says some things and
doesn't say other things.
As a lifetime-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Justice
Scalia, like all other lifetime-appointed judges, had the
opportunity to effectively alter the meaning of the
Constitution if he wanted and could garner the support of
four of his colleagues. But like George Washington
refusing the crown offered him, Justice Scalia rejected
the notion the Supreme Court should impose its own
preferred policies on the country through strained
constitutional interpretations.
Instead, Justice Scalia was an ardent defender of
democracy, representative democracy. As he said: ``If you
think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring
you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty
is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it.
You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow
citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.''
Justice Scalia's respect for article I of the
Constitution, the article that begins with these words,
``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in
a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives,'' that article, which
clearly sets forth the powers of the Congress to
legislate, not the executive branch and not the courts, is
one of Justice Scalia's greatest legacies.
As much as Justice Scalia will be remembered as an able
critic of the notion of a living Constitution, he will be
remembered for his own living dissents, and many majority
opinions, which will live forever in the hearts and minds
of lovers of the law in America and around the world.
Thank you, Justice Scalia.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia, Barbara
Comstock, for organizing this Special Order and for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, Father Paul Scalia said in his beautiful
eulogy of his father, Justice Antonin Scalia, on Saturday:
We give thanks that Jesus brought him to new life in
baptism, nourished him with the Eucharist, and healed him
in the confessional. God blessed Dad with a deep Catholic
faith, the conviction that Christ's presence and power
continue in the world today through His body, the Church.
Mr. Speaker, last week our country lost one of its most
outspoken and dedicated defenders of faith and liberty.
For nearly 30 years, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
stood as a monument to a faith-based viewpoint on the
Constitution that will be sorely missed.
There is no one in the history of our country who better
protected the original intent of our Constitution and
upheld the God-given rights of all Americans than Justice
Scalia.
Shown by his fierce dedication to defending our
Constitution, from protecting Americans from government
intrusion to protecting the rights of the unborn, Justice
Scalia was a man of conviction, a man of passion, and a
man of integrity.
His honor and vigilance toward the original meaning of
the Constitution and his historic dissents will ring
throughout history. Every single ounce of Justice Scalia's
heart and soul was devoted to our country, his faith, and
his family. His wit, his candor, and his character will be
missed on our Nation's highest Court. The legacy of
Justice Scalia must never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I stand committed today to ensure we
continue to prioritize faith and freedom in this country,
protecting our natural-born rights as citizens of the
United States of America. It is simply the right thing to
do.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding.
When I was informed of the Justice's death, it came
across my electronic devices. I texted my wife back home,
and I said, ``I just want to cry.''
I had the extraordinary privilege of getting to know the
Justice on a more personal basis. In western Nebraska
there is a large outcropping. It is called Chimney Rock.
Chimney Rock was the place that marked the halfway point
across America. When the settlers crossed the great
country, when they got to Chimney Rock, they knew that
they were halfway along their journey.
In the shadow of that rock, just this last December, I
was in a duck blind with Justice Scalia who, as we all
know, had that as an avocation. When you spend a couple of
days in a duck blind with somebody, it is a bonding
experience. You get to know them more personally.
In my own reflections about what Chimney Rock meant to
the country, a bridge between the past and the future, I
thought it appropriately captured the character, the
nature, the wisdom of the great Justice.
He was a great student of American history, our legal
system, a great protector of the Constitution and
precedents. He understood how important it was to act in a
consistent manner with principle while looking forward and
applying that principle in ever-changing circumstances of
American life. Because he did so with continuity and with
consistency, he was a man of great integrity. His inner
voice matched his outer voice.
When we saw this beautiful outpouring of support at his
funeral from people all across the political aisle, I
think the common narrative there was a deep respect for
this great man.
Mr. Speaker, when he died, I felt like America lost her
grandfather. He was a soaring intellect, had an incisive
wit, and had in a certain sense a humble personality. He
loved to share a joke. For me to have the privilege of
spending some time in a personal intimate setting with him
I count as an extraordinary privilege of my time in public
service.
May God rest his soul. May God grant him peace. May God
continue to bless the United States of America and give us
all the strength to continue to think through how we are
going to elevate and form the next generation of Americans
who can apply themselves in such an extraordinary,
sacrificial way as Justice Scalia did.
I remember one other comment I wanted to leave with you.
I remember when the Justice asked me, ``How many children
do you have?'' You beautifully talked about how he was so
devoted to his family and faith. He asked me, knowing that
I knew he had nine, how many children I had. I said, ``I
have five.''
He paused. He said, ``Respectable.''
That was it.
I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia for her beautiful
remarks and for giving me this moment to honor this great
American.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for his lovely
remarks. Five is a good start, right, getting to that
nine.
I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding. I especially thank her for
arranging this Special Order tonight in memory of Justice
Scalia, who was truly a legal giant. He was a man who
surpassed all of the intellects that I have been aware of
in my lifetime. Certainly no one in the legal profession
has demonstrated more of a love for the law, more respect
for the law, and more respect for the original intent of
the Constitution.
Now, I have nowhere near the personal contact with
Justice Scalia that the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Comstock) did or the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry). I did meet him on a number of occasions. I
had the opportunity to speak with him. Usually our
conversations consisted of talking about the fact that we
lived in working class neighborhoods in Queens. We grew up
about a mile apart from each other. We both attended
Jesuit high schools. That is about where the comparison
ended as far as the Jesuit high schools, because he was
valedictorian and I was far from it. He was a person who
had the strength of somebody from the neighborhood, but he
had the scholar's intellect.
He had an intellect that went beyond tremendous
intelligence. It was an intellect that was shaped and
framed by his deep religious faith and a belief in
undiminished, lasting, and immutable principles. That is
what reflected throughout his opinions. Yet he never let
his own feelings or prejudices influence his thinking.
That was certainly proven in the flag burning case. If
there is anyone who loved his country and would oppose the
concept of the act of flag burning, it was Justice Scalia.
Yet he upheld the act as an expression of free speech, as
much as it pained him.
Something that many of us in politics and government
have a hard time doing is following the letter of the law,
following the intent of the law, and following the meaning
of the law. Somehow, we like to put in our own feelings
and beliefs. The fact is Justice Scalia told us that there
is a higher principle than that.
Also he had such a respect for language. There were no
easy words thrown about. There were no escape clauses or
phrases. There was an intent and purpose and meaning to
everything that he did. To read his opinions, whether in
the majority--and knowing that he was in the majority made
us feel much better--or in his dissents, you realized,
again, how determined he was, how forceful he was, and how
committed he was to arriving at the correct decision--one
which, again, followed the original intent of the
Constitution.
There were several references by Barbara Comstock to his
funeral service on Saturday. Again, it was an expression
by so many people of their love and respect for such an
outstanding human being, a person whom I doubt we will
ever see the likes of again--certainly, in our lifetimes.
He was a giant of the law. He was a giant of his faith.
He was a giant of his country. I am proud to join with all
of my colleagues tonight--especially Barbara Comstock, who
arranged this Special Order--in honoring the memory of
Justice Scalia and hoping that that memory lives forward
to carry out his unmatched love for the law, love for his
country, and love for his family and his religion.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman from New York for
his kind words and for bringing a New York flavor here to
such a wonderful man.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Virginia for taking the initiative to honor such a great
man.
In 1986, Antonin Scalia was nominated. I was a junior in
high school. I am not sure it really resonated to me at
the time what the next 30 years would entail. I believe it
is safe to say that not only is he one of the strongest
conservative voices of our day, but he could be of all
time.
I think of his life and I think of the example that he
left for all of us, whether in politics or not. It is one
thing to be conservative; it is another thing to be
effective. He showed with his life that he did not have to
compromise his principles or his values to be effective.
When I look at his peers around him, Justice Ginsburg
many times talked about the friendship and the
relationship she had with him. It was genuine. He took
Justice Kagan hunting. He taught her how to hunt. She
killed her first big deer with Justice Scalia at her side.
What does that tell me? It tells me something that we need
to remember: you can connect with people, you can hold
your values, but you can have a genuine love for your
fellow man.
There is much to be said about Antonin Scalia's faith.
Obviously, he lived it, but he lived it in a way that set
an example for all of us. Yes, we get frustrated. It is OK
to be angry--sometimes vertically, but never
horizontally--with our coworkers, our friends, our
neighbors, and our family.
He set the mark. He set it high. He was someone who
could work in, arguably, the toughest environment in the
world, yet still gain the respect of his political
archrivals. For that, I thank him. Tonight, I honor him
for showing us how to be both conservative and effective.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Comstock
for organizing this tonight.
I just have a quick personal story, Mr. Speaker.
Justice Scalia's daughter, Ann, lives in my
neighborhood. I served in the State legislature, and I
learned that this woman whose last name, obviously, was no
longer Scalia, was the daughter of Justice Scalia. So I
called her up, and I said, ``If your dad is ever in town,
I would love to meet him.''
I was that guy, Mr. Speaker, who made that call, and she
was very gracious.
Sometime later, she called me up and said, ``Peter, my
dad is coming in. Why don't you and your family stop by.''
So the Roskams ran around the corner. My wife,
Elizabeth, myself, and my four children, who were young at
the time, went over and spent a few minutes on a Sunday
afternoon with Justice Scalia. He was very magnanimous and
very gracious in his blue jeans and sweatshirt, getting up
off the couch, but extending himself to us.
A couple of years later, I won a seat in the U.S. House.
I thought: Well, I have got a little bit of a connection.
I will reach out and call him and try to make a courtesy
call.
I made some contact with his chambers and his staff and
they said, ``Well, would you like to come over and listen
to an argument?''
As a new Member of Congress, I said, ``I would love to
go over.''
So, over I went and listened to an argument in the
Supreme Court. It was very dramatic, as you know. I was
walking out feeling a little bit let down because I
actually wanted to say hello to Justice Scalia. But not to
be disappointed, his staff said, ``Come on with us.''
So I went up to his office, and there in his chambers he
set out a lunch. The two of us had lunch together.
Now, who I was having lunch with was not lost on me. The
magnitude, the scale, the capacity of this man and his
ability to influence things on a grand scale was not lost
on me. Yet he was really willing to spend some time with
me that day.
I have got to tell you one other quick story.
A few years ago, I invited him to dinner. I said,
``Justice Scalia, a number of my colleagues would love to
have dinner with you. Would you be willing to come out?''
Of course, he did.
I told my wife afterward: ``This guy is so interesting
and so charming, if he had a radio show, you would listen
to it. You would set your timer so that you could listen
to him.''
He was so interesting, so clever, and so quick and
willing to take all kinds of questions and all kinds of
debate and so forth.
I just want to close by saying this. There are many
times when we feel overwhelmed by events that are before
us in our public life. There are many times when our
constituents feel overwhelmed and they get this sense of:
Is there anybody out there who has got some level of
judgment and wisdom and capacity here? Are there any
examples and role models?
The answer is: Justice Scalia. He is an example. He is
an example that we are all the beneficiaries of: his clear
mind; his capacity to disagree without being disagreeable;
his capacity to build people up; his capacity to
articulate a world view; his capacity to be a faithful and
vocal follower of his savior, Jesus, and not be defensive
about it; and to basically invite people along to
celebrate and to participate in this great gift, which is
our democracy.
Even in these short interactions that I had with him,
you always got the sense--or, I did--that he got the joke.
In other words, there was a twinkle in his eye.
This is a democracy and we have got roles to play. His
role on the Court was to do his thing. Our role, Mr.
Speaker, is to legislate with that same sense of
commitment and character and tenacity and clarity that
Justice Scalia brought to his role on the judiciary.
So, I want to honor Justice Scalia. I want to honor his
wife, Mrs. Scalia. I want to honor his children and
grandchildren. I thank them, because it is a sacrifice for
them to have someone of that caliber and that capacity in
that role for our country. It is not a burden that is
easy, but they have been willing to bear that burden. Our
country is better off for it.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for those lovely
memories.
In the outpouring that we saw in his passing, one of the
pictures that I saw from a neighbor was a picture of
Justice Scalia, who was probably coming home from a long
day at work, and some children on our street had a
lemonade stand. He had stopped and gotten out there to
support those little entrepreneurs. The mom came out and
took a picture of them. He was there beaming with those
kids, in his suit, all dressed up, and these little kids
were there with their lemonade stand and so proud.
He really did take the time that my friend, Mr. Roskam,
spoke about and really just engaged and loved life so
much.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my colleague from Virginia for
organizing this fitting tribute to somebody who really did
make a difference.
Very few people who serve not only in the judiciary, but
really at any level of government, leave the lasting mark
that Antonin Scalia did. He will join the likes of John
Marshall, Joseph Story, and Robert Jackson as one of the
all-time greats in American law.
I think of all the great things you can say about him.
He was sharp, he was witty, and he wrote brilliantly. I
think the reason why he is a titan of modern American law
is because he insisted on discharging the judicial duty in
a way that strengthened our overall constitutional order.
He insisted on textualism when you are interpreting
statutes. He had an originalist outlook when you are
talking about the constitutional interpretation. Those
frames of reference really vindicated the separation of
powers.
The judicial power under article III is to decide cases
and controversy. So you have cases before you that you
have got to decide. It is not to go out and be a roving
superlegislature. It is not to impose your philosophy on
society. You decide cases.
So, once judges free their decisionmaking from the
objective meaning of the law in the Constitution, they are
taking away power belonging to the American people that
should be exercised through their Representatives. Justice
Scalia always understood that. He was always insistent
that judges have an objective standard when they are
discharging their duty.
When you talk about textualism, you read the statute for
what it says. You don't correct the statute. You don't
amend the statute. You don't find subjective views of some
random legislature who happened to say something in a
committee hearing. You actually apply the words as
written. That is the judicial task.
When you do that, you are basically vindicating the
power of the Congress and of the people's elected
Representatives, because they are the ones who wrote the
law. If the courts depart from that, then they are
departing from what the elected Representatives did.
I am sure he saw countless statutes that were asinine as
a matter of policy, but he said, ``That is not my job to
correct that.'' So he is absolutely vindicating the
separation of powers in the constitutional order.
The same thing with constitutional interpretation.
Before Justice Scalia took the bench, this was a
freewheeling thing. Judges would say: Society matures and
it is up to us to, effectively, update the meaning of the
Constitution.
That means you have five lawyers--unelected,
unaccountable--that serve as an effective roving
constitutional convention that can change the Constitution
based on one case that happens to come in front of them.
That was something that Justice Scalia thought was
totally outside the bounds of the proper judicial role. He
said the Constitution has a fixed, enduring meaning, and
it is our job as judges to ascertain that meaning and
apply it to the cases and controversies before us.
So, if you look at a figure that has had more impact on
how we think about the law and the Constitution over the
last 50 years, you are not going to find one that
surpasses Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a great American
in every respect. He fought the good fight. He finished
the race. He kept the faith. What a good guy. What a life.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Virginia, for organizing this Special Order on behalf of
this remarkable American.
On February 13 of this year, our country lost a giant.
His legacy will never fade. Justice Scalia influenced
countless jurists, attorneys, law students, and everyday
Americans. My thoughts and prayers have been with his
wife, Maureen, Father Paul, and the entire Scalia family
since the passing of this outstanding American statesman.
Regardless of whether one agreed with his opinions on
the Supreme Court, this man's consistent integrity and
admirable character cannot be denied. In both word and
action, he was a man of the strongest character and
deepest virtue.
This was evident in the commencement address he gave to
the graduating class of the College of William & Mary in
1996, when he said:
Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and
physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought
and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour.
The only thing in the world that is not for sale is
character.
The way he lived out the virtues of integrity and
humility did not go unnoticed.
Several weeks ago, we here in Washington had the
opportunity to go to the National Prayer Breakfast, which
attracted Members of Congress, the President, Senators,
Ambassadors, people from all over the world, and we were
treated with an appearance by famed tenor Andrea Bocelli.
I think that Justice Scalia would have enjoyed his
appearance and his appreciation for opera.
In addition to his wonderful renditions of ``Panis
Angelicus,'' which, again would have been another treat
for Justice Scalia, and ``Amazing Grace,'' Mr. Bocelli
lamented the dark shadow that war casts on the world and
expressed concern for its victims, identifying war as a
major problem in our world today.
But then it was interesting. Mr. Bocelli stated: ``There
is that small, hateful word, `hubris,' already known in
antiquity.'' The ancient Greeks used it to define pride
and the arrogance it entails.
Bocelli's use of the word ``hubris'' was compelling in
that he spoke it in the center of power here in the United
States.
That word conjures a theme that we have seen in Justice
Scalia's work. Justice Scalia went about his task of
considering significant constitutional and legal issues of
the day with a profound and seldom seen humility about the
role of courts in our country.
They are not there to impose their own beliefs on the
people, but to adjudicate competing claims in the context
of a Constitution that has enduring meaning.
To interpret the law in any other way otherwise
aggrandizes power to a select few, a power that was never
intended by the Founders. This humility of position that
Justice Scalia had I believe will be a lasting legacy.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Justice Scalia
from a policy perspective, his writings reflect a profound
respect for an understanding of our system of government
and an unparalleled respect for an interpretation of the
Constitution grounded in text and in history. For this our
Nation should be forever grateful.
May he rest in peace.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of
my colleagues for their comments.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity for
all of our colleagues to join us in celebrating the life
of this great man, Justice Scalia, who so many of us were
privileged to know and count as a friend.
For anyone who would like to view the beautiful mass of
Christian burial for Justice Scalia that was presided over
by his son, Father Paul Scalia, who gave a beautiful
homily, that can be found on C-SPAN. I appreciate that
that was covered.
I also, again, appreciate this opportunity to celebrate
this beautiful life, this family.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in tribute to
one of the greatest jurists in this Nation's history.
Justice Antonin Scalia had a preeminent mind following an
excellent education. He has a beautiful family and has
already been very sorely missed.
I thought it might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to get a
sense of the man and how profoundly concerned he was with
the place in which this country finds itself after world
wars, after depressions, after all kinds of threats: a
massive civil war in the 1860s, all kinds of things that
have threatened this Nation, even the War of 1812 during
which this Capitol was set on fire.
There were all of these threats; yet, at this time in
which we live, he could see and he tried to sound the
warning alarms for what the majority of the Supreme Court
was doing to this country.
It seemed to be encapsulated rather well back in the
June 12, 2008, decision in the case of Boumediene v.
George W. Bush, President of the United States, combined
with another case.
The decision of the majority of the Court, as Justice
Scalia pointed out, was so totally inconsistent with the
majority's own majority opinion in a prior case regarding
people who were captured on the battlefield and who were
clearly at war with the United States.
Throughout the history of warfare at least among
civilized nations during the period of warfare, the
civilized thing to do was to hold those who were at war
with you until such time as the groups they represent,
they come from, declare they are no longer at war with
you.
Then they can be released unless they have committed
some heinous crime for which they should account beyond
that of being part of the war against the Nation.
The Supreme Court majority had previously said basically
that, of course, the Constitution gives the Congress the
power to create tribunals, to create courts.
As my former constitutional law professor said, there is
only one Court in the whole country's Federal system that
owes its creation to the U.S. Constitution, and that is
the U.S. Supreme Court. All other Federal courts,
tribunals, owe their existences and their jurisdictions to
the U.S. Congress.
So the majority Court had previously said, in effect,
that Congress could, in cases where enemy combatants are
seized on the battlefield, hold them without right of writ
of habeas corpus, because that has basically been the
history of civilized warfare.
Obviously, in uncivilized warfare, people were taken,
abused, tortured, made slaves. That has happened
throughout the history of mankind. But for nations that
were civilized, you simply held them, hopefully, in
humanitarian conditions.
In the Boumediene case, Justice Scalia started his
dissent by writing:
I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to
the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court.
Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it
appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous
consequences of what the Court has done today.
Justice Scalia went on:
America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy
began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241
at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers
in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and
Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen.
On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to
American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New
York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and 40
in Pennsylvania.
It has threatened further attacks against our homeland;
one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded
Washington or board a plane anywhere in the country to
know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces
are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.
The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays
upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war
harder on us.
What comes next is, perhaps, one of the most profound
statements that any Justice on the Supreme Court ever put
in writing, but he was right. Being right in his
discernment of the Supreme Court's decision, he knew he
needed to put this next sentence in print.
So, in talking about the majority opinion, Justice
Scalia wrote this: ``It will almost certainly cause more
Americans to be killed.''
He wrote: ``That consequence would be tolerable if
necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital
to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's
blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the
decision today. The President relied on our settled
precedent in Johnson vs. Eisentrager''--this was back in
1950--``when he established the prison at Guantanamo Bay
for enemy aliens. Citing that case, the President's Office
of Legal Counsel advised him `that the great weight of
legal authority indicates that a federal district court
could not properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an
alien detained at Guantanamo Bay.'''
Further down, the Justice writes:
In the short term, however, the decision is devastating.
At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from
Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.
But others have succeeded in carrying on their
atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a
detainee released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the
kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was
later shot to death when used as a human shield against
Pakistani commandos.
Another former detainee promptly resumed his post as a
senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations
engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Still another murdered
an Afghan judge. It was reported only last month that a
released detainee carried out a suicide bombing against
Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq.
Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible
difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy
combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the
environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence
collection.
Justice Scalia goes on:
During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman,
federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted
coconspirators to the ``Blind Sheikh's'' defense lawyers;
that information was in the hands of Osama Bin Laden
within two weeks.
Justice Scalia went on to write page after page,
explaining the perils that the overzealous and
underthinking majority of the Court had imposed on the
United States, on our military.
Justice Scalia made clear, when it comes to war, the
decision that the majority made was to basically tell our
military: Instead of protecting yourselves and protecting
your brothers and sisters in arms, we are going to require
you to go out there, gather up DNA evidence, get blood
evidence, maybe just drive a forensic wagon out there onto
the field of battle. Start gathering evidence because some
moronic person in a palace in Washington--``palace'' being
what some of the Justices who first went through the new
Supreme Court Building said about it back in 1935, that
palace in which they reside--has said that, in a time of
war, we have lost our mind in America, and we are going to
now start putting our military at risk of their very lives
so they can go gather up evidence to satisfy some bloated
judge in a palace in Washington.
That is why he made the profound statement that he did
in this dissent.
His words will almost certainly cause more Americans to
be killed. That is extraordinary.
Dear Justice Scalia finished the dissenting opinion by
saying:
Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that
goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the
Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed
separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable
``functional'' test for the extraterritorial reach of
habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial
reach of other constitutional protections as well). It
blatantly misdescribes important precedents, most
conspicuously Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court in
Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as
old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into
the detention of aliens abroad absent statutory
authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military
commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian
court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the
future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and
every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent.
What a magnificent man. What a brilliant man with
extraordinary common sense.
So, Mr. Speaker, my staff helped me. We have all been
picking out favorite quotes that Justice Scalia has
provided, both in written opinion and in speeches.
One of Justice Scalia's statements was: ``Never
compromise your principles, unless, of course, your
principles are Adolph Hitler's, in which case you would be
well-advised to compromise them as much as you can.''
Another statement by Justice Scalia was: ``More
important than your obligation to follow your conscience,
or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your
conscience correctly.''
Justice Scalia said:
You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No
problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it
the way most rights are created in a democratic society.
Pass a law. And that law, unlike a constitutional right to
abortion created by a court, can compromise.
Justice Scalia said, ``A Constitution is not meant to
facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make
it difficult to change.''
Brilliant statement.
Some think the Constitution is a living, breathing
document. I have discussed this over at the Supreme Court
palace with him, and I have discussed it with him at
lunches, breakfasts.
There are a handful of special privileges that I count
myself blessed to have been able to enjoy, and one of
those handful has been time spent with Justice Scalia. He
had an incredible sense of humor. He could crack me up.
Most of the time, he meant to. Sometimes his sarcasm was
just too humorous not to laugh. He attacked himself with
self-effacing humor.
He said this: ``I attack ideas. I don't attack people.
And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if
you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day
job.''
He was a funny man, but a brilliant man. God blessed
that man with wisdom.
Justice Scalia said:
I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love
to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It
may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may
well be that I'm something of a contrarian.
He said, ``Well, we didn't set out to have nine
children''--talking about his beautiful family. He said,
``We're just old-fashioned Catholics, you know.''
Justice Scalia said, ``I think Thomas Jefferson would
have said the more speech, the better. That's what the
First Amendment is all about.''
Today I see around our college campuses conservatives
like me are often shunned. I am grateful to have been
invited to speak at Oxford in England and at Cambridge.
But it is amazing that places like my conservative Texas
A&M, there are students there--much fewer there, but all
over the country at what are supposed to be enlightened
universities--that don't want to hear any view different
from their own.
When I was at A&M, I mean, I helped host Ralph Nader. I
didn't agree with him on much, but I loved the exchange
with him, the thoughts that went back and forth. He was a
very intriguing man. We weren't afraid of discussions with
liberals.
It is one of the things I loved about Justice Scalia. He
was so brilliant, so grounded. His faith was so strongly
standing on God's Word, the Bible. He knew who he was. He
knew whose he was, and he knew whose were his, and he
loved his family dearly.
Justice Scalia said:
Undoubtedly, some think that the Second Amendment is
outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride
of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide
personal security, and where gun violence is a serious
problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not
debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
It was absolutely a great dissent. Pointing out the
hypocrisy, the flawed thinking, the incredible poor
quality of the writing in the majority opinion in the
Obamacare decision, Justice Scalia said:
This Court, however, concludes that this limitation
would prevent the rest of the act from working as well as
hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits
available everywhere. We should start calling this law
SCOTUSCare instead of Obamacare.
The Supreme Court of the United States care, how about
that?
He went on to say:
Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short,
the government should lose this case. But normal rules of
interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding
principle of this Court: The Affordable Care Act must be
saved.
He goes on. It says:
If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard
on some minority and they think it's terribly unfair, it
doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into this
complex system. Americans should appreciate that; they
should learn to love the gridlock. It's there so the
legislation that does get out is good legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it brings to mind a discussion I heard him
have with some people from my district, some senior
citizens that were coming to Washington, 50 or 60. They
had asked me, ``They say you are friends with Justice
Scalia. Do you think we could meet him?''
I felt comfortable enough to call him. He said, ``Sure.
Bring them.''
So we worked it out, brought them through the side
entrance, came into a meeting room. They were all seated
there when Justice Scalia came walking in. He leaned up
against the table in front of them, and they were kind of
in awe because they knew how brilliant Justice Scalia was.
He said, ``Well, you wanted to meet me. Here I am. What
questions have you got?''
It kind of took the group aback, so people were
struggling to try to come up with a question. Finally, one
of them said, ``Well, Justice Scalia, wouldn't you say
that we are the freest Nation in the history of the world
because we have the best Bill of Rights?''
In typical Scalia style, he said, ``Oh, gosh, no. The
Soviet Union had a much better bill of rights than we have
got. It guaranteed a lot more freedoms than we have.''
I've forgotten, but in college I made an A on a paper
that discussed the Soviet constitution and the bill of
rights. He was right. That old Soviet bill of rights
guaranteed all kinds of rights, but it didn't protect
them.
He went on to say--and I am not quoting exactly--but the
gist of what he had to say is, now, the reason America is
the most free Nation in the history of the world is
because the Founders didn't trust the government, so they
made it as difficult as they could to pass a law. It
wasn't enough to have one House; they wanted two Houses,
and not like England where one of them doesn't have all
that much authority. They wanted two Houses where either
one of them could stop a law from being passed. So even if
one House were successful in finally getting a majority of
people to agree on a law, then the other House would have
to agree, and they could stop it completely in its tracks.
That wasn't good enough. They wanted another check and
balance, another way to stop law. They wanted to create
gridlock. So they said: You know what? We don't want a
parliamentarian system where the legislators elect a prime
minister. No. We want an Executive elected totally
different from the legislature. So we will have him
elected in a whole different way, and then he can stop any
law they may try to pass. And that is not good enough.
Let's create another branch, the judiciary branch, and
then they can nix anything that is passed.
No, we are the most free Nation in history because the
Founders didn't trust government and they made it as hard
as possible to pass laws.
Justice Scalia said in one of his dissents, ``I have
exceeded the speed limit on occasion.''
He said, ``A man who has no enemies is probably not a
very good man.'' ...
He said:
If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you
have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always
going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them
all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.
I've experienced that myself. There were times I
disagreed with the law, but it was constitutionally made
and passed, and I followed the law as a judge and chief
justice. That is exactly what he did.
In a dissent in 1996, Justice Scalia said, ``The Court
must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case,
it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not
recognize.''
Ten years later, in 2006, he said:
So the question comes up, is there a constitutional
right to have homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for
me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when
the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to
homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for
200 years in every State. Easy question.
He made those statements in remarks at the University of
Fribourg, Switzerland, back in 2006.
In 2009 he said, ``The Court today continues its
quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all
imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest
cannot succeed.''
He also said:
This case, involving legal requirements of the content
and labeling of meat products such as frankfurters affords
a rare opportunity to explore simultaneously both parts of
Bismarck's aphorism that ``no man should see how laws or
sausages are made.''
He said, ``God has been very good to us. One of the
reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him
honor.''
Certainly, Justice Scalia did God honor.
A lot of people don't realize what a tenderhearted man
he was as well. After the horrendous murder of Justice
Michael Luttig's father and the assault and attempted
murder of his mother in their own garage, two streets over
from my house, the family did not want to call Michael and
describe the horrors that had been inflicted on his father
and mother.
In the middle of the night, Justice Scalia was in bed.
Justice Scalia got called, and he went out to Michael
Luttig, Judge Luttig's house, and let him know in the wee
hours of the morning that his father had been killed.
Justice Scalia, for whom Judge Luttig had clerked, knew
Michael Luttig loved him. He put on his warmup suit and
went out in the middle of the night many miles away
because he cared.
As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I thought about the words of
John Quincy Adams in the Amistad case. He didn't think he
had won the case. He was finishing. He was afraid he had
not done an adequate job defending these Africans who
should be free and should be free to go where they wanted
without chains, without bondage.
So he finished his argument by saying, and this is John
Quincy Adams, 1841, in the Supreme Court:
As I cast my eyes along those seats of honor and public
trust, now occupied by you, they seek in vain for one of
those honored and honorable persons whose indulgence
listened then to my voice. Marshall, Cushing, Chase,
Washington, Johnson, Livingston, Todd--where are they?
Where is that eloquent statesman and learned lawyer who
was my associate counsel in the management of that cause,
Robert Goodloe Harper? Where is that brilliant luminary,
so long the pride of Maryland and of the American Bar,
then my opposing counsel, Luther Martin? Where is the
excellent clerk of that day, whose name has been inscribed
on the shores of Africa, as a monument of his abhorrence
of the African slave trade Elias B. Caldwell? Where is the
marshal? Where are the criers of the Court? Alas, where is
one of the very judges of the Court, arbiters of life and
death, before whom I commenced the anxious argument, even
now prematurely closed? Where are they all? Gone. Gone.
All gone. Gone from the services which, in their day and
generation, they faithfully rendered to their country. I
humbly hope, and fondly trust, that they have gone to
receive the rewards of blessedness on high.
In taking, then, his final leave of the bar there at the
Supreme Court, John Quincy Adams said he hoped that every
member of the Supreme Court may go to his final account
with as little of earthly frailty to answer for as those
illustrious dead.
He said:
That you may, every one, after the close of a long and
virtuous career in this world, be received at the portals
of the next with the approving sentence: ``Well done, good
and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy
Lord.''
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever that Justice
Antonin Scalia, my friend, our friend, the luminary of the
Supreme Court, heard those words days ago: ``Well done,
good and faithful servant.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and in
sorrow of the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was
truly larger than life. He will go down in history as one
of America's greatest Supreme Court Justices. He was a
champion for freedom and the Constitution, a great family
man and a devout man of faith. I submit this poem penned
in his honor by Albert Carey Caswell.
Larger,
larger than life
America's son,
oh so very bright
Antonin,
for all of America you held the night
As you stood with all of our best in America's light
Same as all of our Forefathers in sight
Who shone in liberty's sheen so very bright
Of something which gleams into the night
Of this our most beloved document seen of this sight
Who'd the United States Constitution recite
Which built this country,
not out of luck or by circumstance
But by the bedrock upon which all of us have advanced
The very foundation upon which all of our freedoms so
stand
Of such consequence through the decades which commands
To weather all of the storms,
and battle all of tyranny in all of its forms
For no other Nation in this entire world,
has had such freedoms upon its citizens unfurled
For you Justice Scalia,
were but the guardian for all of our children and their
future world
And even your detractors knew you were larger than life,
while upon you their arguments they hurled
As you stood there with sword in hand
With your pen, your wit, your charm, and your mind to take
command
All so freedom could stand
For you had the gift,
of all of your opponents respect and love as so was this
If only we had more men like you in this world,
who against such divisiveness could rise above like a
pearl,
then we'd have such the bliss
And your greatest love of all,
was that of your magnificent family we saw
Of what you left behind,
to spread out through time
Your seeds of love to remind,
that the gift of love and life are oh so very divine
And just like our Forefathers you were a true man of God
For the freedom to worship they stepped upon this very sod
No other country across the world,
has so been formed out of God
And your two greatest reads,
The Bible and The Constitution brought to your soul such
glee
To arm you in the battle for all you would need
Now Marshall and all of the greats,
have another equal for history to so contemplate
Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant you were my son in so many
ways
Your written opinions and quest for justice,
disarmed all of those arguments and held them at bay
Indeed it's a very sad day
For America's loss,
comes at such a high cost
Because such men like you Antonin are larger than life,
and keep all of our freedom's burning bright
As our world just got a little bit darker this night
We pray that America too will follow your light
Supreme,
at the top,
as into the future upon lips of lawyers and law students,
your name shall never stop
Rest
Rest my son
Rise up to heaven Antonin where you so belong
As an Angel in The Army of our Lord so very strong
To watch over us you American song
And larger than life,
and your memory will ever live on
God Bless you America's son,
as you did her the day you were born
Amen
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and
19 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to
House Resolution 620, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, February 24, 2016, at 10 a.m., for morning-hour
debate, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the
late Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, ten days ago, on February
13, 2016, the Nation was saddened to learn of the death of
Justice Antonin Scalia, the senior Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia, who loved the Court, served it ably for
nearly 30 years and was involved in some of the most
consequential cases in history. ...
In fact, Justice Scalia would say to anyone claiming
otherwise, ``Leges posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant,'' which is Latin for the canon of judicial
interpretation that ``the last expression of the people
prevails.'' ...
Friday, February 26, 2016
Mr. GOHMERT. ... It sometimes shocks people that a
conservative like me can have some very liberal friends,
just like the great Antonin Scalia was very close friends
with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They had totally different
views. He believed in upholding the letter of the law of
the Constitution and she didn't, but they were friends.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Mr. JEFFRIES. ... We know that Justice Antonin Scalia
has moved on after a long and distinguished career. Though
I disagree with almost every single judicial opinion that
he has issued, he served this Nation well.
Mr. JEFFRIES. ... What I haven't been able to understand
is this Justice who I have disagreed with on many issues.
Although he was strong--Justice Scalia--on the privacy
rights of the American people, the Fourth Amendment--he
was concerned about the criminalization of politics, these
are areas where there is some common ground.
And certainly he was a giant in terms of legal thought.
...
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Ms. JACKSON LEE. ... Justice Scalia may have had many
qualities but none endeared him more to his admirers on
that debate stage and across the country than his
professed devotion to the rule of law, his exaltation of
the doctrine of ``original intent,'' and his insistence
that the meaning of the Constitution is to be divined only
from the strictest reading of the text. ...
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Ms. SPEIER. ... It is important to quote what the late
Justice Scalia said about discrimination against women. He
was a constitutional expert, an originalist, and he said
the following: ``Certainly the Constitution does not
require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue
is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''
When I read that quotation by Justice Scalia--may he
rest in peace--I had shivers up and down my spine because
it was so direct. It was so clear. It makes the point that
the Constitution of this country does not prohibit
discrimination based on sex, even though the vast majority
of Americans believe it is already in the Constitution.
Ninety-six percent of U.S. adults believe that male and
female citizens should have equal rights, and 72 percent
mistakenly believe it is already in the Constitution. As
Justice Scalia pointed out, it is not. ...
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Mr. KING of Iowa. ... We have just said goodbye to one
of the great Justices in the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice
Scalia, who often said that, when he made a decision based
on the Constitution and he was uncomfortable with the
policy that resulted from that constitutional decision, he
was most comfortable that he had made the right
constitutional decision when he disagreed with a policy
result of that decision. ...
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be
recognized by you to address you here on the floor of the
U.S. House of Representatives.
I come to the floor here today with an issue that I
think is important that America have a dialog on the
topic, and some of that is going on. It is going on in the
Presidential races across the country and in the coffee
shops and at work, at play, at church, and around the
country in the things that we do.
But then a moment in history comes along that shocked a
lot of us to the core--and that was the abrupt and
unexpected loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, a person whom I
got to know. I would like to say that I called him a
friend. He was a person whose personality I enjoyed a lot,
his robust sense of humor, his acerbic wit in the way that
he conveyed his messages, especially when he wrote the
dissenting opinions for the Supreme Court. He found
himself occasionally in the minority, but I think he was
almost always right in those constitutional decisions.
When Justice Scalia wrote those minority opinions, he
realized that--and he just thought in advance--the
students in law school would have to read the dissenting
opinions as well as the majority opinions.
So he made sure when he wrote especially his dissenting
opinions that they were engaging, they were entertaining,
they were provocative, and they were challenging. It
caused the law school students to read those and remember
the points that Justice Scalia had made.
That is a legacy of the 29 years of Justice Scalia that
will live within the annals of the history of the United
States of America, especially those who are studying
constitutional law and those that are in law school. ...
What we have in front of us is this: The loss of Justice
Scalia leaves an empty seat on the Supreme Court. It is an
intellectual hole, not just a voting hole. But it is an
intellectual hole left by the towering legal intellect of
Justice Scalia. ...
I will go further than to suggest, Mr. Speaker. I will
assert that we have a Court today that too often reaches
outside its bounds. If I had a criticism of Justice
Scalia, it would be his deeper respect for stare decisis
that I happen to see in a Justice such as Clarence Thomas.
...
I want judges who read the Constitution and literally
interpret the Constitution. The judges who understand, as
Justice Scalia did, that when he makes a decision based on
the Constitution and the letter of the law--if he is
uncomfortable with the policy decision that emerges with
that, that tells him that he can be very comfortable with
the constitutionality of the decision that he has made
because, on policy, he disagrees, but he knows that he is
not there to determine policy. ...
The Constitution of the United States requires that the
Congress establish a Supreme Court. Then it is up to our
discretion as to what other Federal court we might want to
establish.
Mr. Speaker, I actually had this debate with Justice
Scalia. One of the things I enjoyed about him was little
banters along the way and how these arguments came out. I
made the point to him that the Constitution only requires
that the Congress establish a Supreme Court, not all the
other Federal courts. So we could--Congress--abolish all
of the Federal districts that are there. We could say
there will be no Federal courts. It will all be handled
through the Supreme Court itself. That is not a practical
application, but it is from a constitutional perspective.
Then I said to Justice Scalia that we could eliminate
all the Federal courts except the Supreme Court. Over
time, we could reduce the Supreme Court. There is no
requirement that the Supreme Court have nine Justices or
seven or five or three. We could reduce the Supreme Court
of the United States down to the Chief Justice. There is
no requirement that we build or fund a building or heat it
or wire it for electronics or anything. There is no
requirement that we have staff for any of the Supreme
Court. The Congress could crank all the Federal courts
down to just the Supreme Court, reduce the Supreme Court
down to just the Chief Justice at his own card table, with
candle, no staff, and no facility.
That is the argument I made to Justice Scalia. Some of
this I do for entertainment value because he always was an
engaging fellow to have these conversations with.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you ever heard this point
made to him before, but Justice Scalia's response to it
was: I would argue that there is a requirement that there
be three Justices on the Supreme Court; otherwise, there
is no reason to have a Chief Justice.
I thought that was a pretty astute response, Mr.
Speaker. But my response to that was: we have always had
too many chiefs and not enough Indians. ...
The Honorable
Antonin Scalia
March 11, 1936-February 13, 2016
Associate Justice
of the
Supreme Court
of the United States
1986-2016
The Lying in Repose of Justice Scalia
Great Hall, Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC
February 19, 2016
Mass of Christian Burial
Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States
March 11, 1936 February 13, 2016
Mass of Christian Burial
Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States
March 11, 1936 February 13, 2016
February 20, 2016
11:00 am
Great Upper Church
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception
Washington, District of Columbia
Ministers of the Liturgy
Reverend Paul D. Scalia
Episcopal Vicar for Clergy
Diocese of Arlington
Celebrant & Homilist
In the presence of
His Eminence
Donald Cardinal Wuerl
Archbishop of Washington
His Excellency
Most Reverend Carlo Maria Vigano
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
His Excellency
Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of Arlington
Their Excellencies
Attending Archbishops and Bishops
Concelebrating Priests
Concelebrants
Robert Banaszewski
John Scalia
Michael Murray
Christopher Scalia
Eugene Scalia
William Heenan
Lt. Col. Matthew Scalia
John Bryce
Pall Bearers
Order of Mass
INTRODUCTORY RITES
Blessing of the Body and Sprinkling with Holy Water
Entrance Hymn
1. O God, our help in ages past, Our
hope for years to come, Our shelter from the
stormy blast, And our eternal home.
2. Under the shadow of Thy throne Thy
saints have dwelt secure; Sufficient is Thine
arm alone, And our defense is sure.
3. Before the hills in order stood, Or
earth received her frame, From everlasting
Thou art God, To endless years the same.
4. Thy Word commands our flesh to dust, ``Re-
turn, ye sons of men:'' All nations rose from
earth at first, And turn to earth again.
5. A thousand ages in Thy sight Are
like an evening gone; Short as the watch that
ends the night Before the rising sun.
6. Time, like an ever rolling stream, Bears
all its sons away; They fly, forgotten,
as a dream Dies at the op'ning day.
7. O God, our help in ages past, Our
hope for years to come, Be Thou our guard while
troubles last, And our eternal home.
Opening Remarks Donald Cardinal Wuerl
Archbishop of Washington
Collect
LITURGY OF THE WORD
Reading I Wisdom 3:1-9
Mr. Leonard Leo, lector
Psalm Response Psalm 23:1-3, 3-4, 5, 6
The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall
want.
Reading II Romans 5:5-11
Justice Clarence Thomas, lector
Gospel Acclamation
Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ, king of endless
glory!
I am the resurrection and the life;
whoever believes in me, even if he died, will live.
Deacon: The Lord be with you.
Assembly: And with your spirit.
Deacon: A reading from the holy Gospel according to Matthew.
Assembly: Glory to You, O Lord.
Gospel Matthew 11:25-30
Homily Reverend Paul D. Scalia
Episcopal Vicar for Clergy, Diocese of Arlington
General Intercessions Response: Lord, hear
our prayer.
LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
Preparation of the Gifts
(Choir) Beati quorum via Charles Villiers Stanford
(1852-1924)
Beati quorum via integra est: Happy are those whose path is blameless,
Qui ambulant in lege Domini. who walk in the law of the Lord.
(Psalm 119:1)
Preface
Celebrant: Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty
Father.
Assembly: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
for the praise and glory of His name, for our good
and the good of all His holy Church.
Preface Dialogue
Celebrant: The Lord be with you.
Assembly: And with your spirit.
Celebrant: Lift up your hearts.
Assembly: We lift them up to the Lord.
Celebrant: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
Assembly: It is right and just.
Preface Acclamation
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in
excelsis.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Hosanna in excelsis.
Memorial Acclamation
Celebrant: The mystery of faith.
When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim Your
Death, O Lord, until You come again.
Great Amen
Amen, Amen, Amen.
COMMUNION RITE
Lord's Prayer
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Doxology
Sign of Peace
Celebrant: The peace of the Lord be with you always.
Assembly: And with your spirit.
Litany at the Breaking of Bread
(Choir) Missa Quarti toni Tomas Luis de Victoria
Agnus Dei (1548-1611)
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.
Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world, have
mercy on us.
Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Celebrant: Behold the Lamb of God,
behold Him who takes away the sins of the world.
Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.
Assembly: Lord, I am not worthy
that You should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.
Communion Antiphon
(Choir) Lux aeterna Plainsong, Mode VIII
Lux aeterna luceat ei, Domine: Let perpetual light shine upon him, O Lord:
cum sanctis tuis in aeternum with Your holy ones for all time,
quia pius es. because You are merciful.
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine: Grant him eternal rest, O Lord:
et lux perpetua luceat ei: and let perpetual light shine upon him:
cum sanctis tuis in aeternum with Your holy ones for all time,
quia pius es. because You are merciful.
Guidelines for the Reception of Communion
For Catholics
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when
we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly
and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion,
participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have
fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to
receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession
except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In
this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of
perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as
possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is
encouraged for all.
For Our Fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as
our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of
the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and
begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these
will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us
``that they may all be one'' (John 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign
of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those
churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted
to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by
other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the
diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 4). Members of
the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish
National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own
Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law
does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these
Churches (canon 844 3).
For Non-Christians
We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in
Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to
offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.
For Those Not Receiving Holy Communion
All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their
hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one
another.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1996
Communion Procession
1. Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All, How can I
love Thee as I ought? And how revere this
wondrous gift. So far surpassing hope or thought?
Sweet Sacrament, we Thee adore! O make us love Thee
more and more! O make us love Thee more and more.
2. Had I but Mary's sinless heart, To love Thee
with my dearest King; O! with what bursts of
fervent praise, Thy goodness, Jesus would I sing.
Sweet Sacrament, we Thee adore! O make us love Thee
more and more! O make us love Thee more and more.
3. O! see upon the altar placed The victim
of divinest love! Let all the earth be-
low adore. And join the choirs of heav'n above.
Sweet Sacrament, we Thee adore! O make us love Thee
more and more! O make us love Thee more and more.
(Choir) Panis angelicus Cesar Franck
(1822-1890)
Panis angelicus The Bread of angels
fit panis hominum; was made the Bread of man;
Dat panis caelicus He confined the heavenly Bread
figuris terminum. to a thing of size and shape:
O res mirabilis! Manducat Dominum O marvelous thing! That a poor man,
Pauper, servus et humilis. A humble servant, should eat the Lord.
Te, trina Deitas unique, poscimus, We beseech Thee, O God, Three in One,
Sic nos tu visita, sicut te colimus; Visit us, thus, even as we worship Thee.
Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus, Lead us into Thy ways; and by them
Ad lucem quam inhabitas. May we direct our course to the Light in which Thou
dwellest.
(St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274)
(Choir) Ave verum corpus Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
(1756-1791)
Ave verum corpus Hail, True body,
natum de Maria virgine: born of the Virgin Mary:
vere passum immolatum having truly suffered,
in cruce pro homine, sacrificed on the cross for man,
cujus latus perforatum whose pierced side
unda fluxit et sanguine, flowed water and blood,
esto nobis praegustatum be for us a foretaste
in mortis examine. in the test of death.
(Text ascribed to Innocent VI, d. 1362)
Prayer after Communion
RITE OF COMMENDATION
Invitation to Prayer
Song of Farewell
May the angels lead you into paradise;
may the martyrs come to welcome
you and take you to the holy city,
the new and eternal Jerusalem.
May the choir of angels welcome you
Where Lazarus is poor no longer,
may you have eternal rest. (Antiphon)
Prayer of Commendation
Dismissal
Closing Hymn
1. O God beyond all praising, We worship You to-
day And sing the love amazing That songs cannot re-
pay For we can only wonder At ev'ry gift You
send, At blessings without number And mercies without
end: We lift our hearts before You And wait upon Your
word: We honor and adore You Our great and mighty
Lord.
2. Then hear, O gracious Savior, Accept the love we
bring. That we who know Your favor, May serve You as
our
king. And whether our tomorrows Be filled with good or
ill, We'll triumph through our sorrows And rise to
bless You
still: To marvel at Your beauty And glory in Your
ways, And make a joyful duty Our sacrifice of praise.
3. O God, Almighty Father, Creator of all
things, The heavens stand in wonder, While earth Your
glory
sings; O Jesus, Word Incarnate, Redeemer most a-
dored, All glory, praise and honor Be Yours, O
sov'reign
Lord; O God, the Holy Spirit, Who lives within our
soul, Send forth Your light and lead us To our eternal
goal!
The family of Justice Antonin Scalia
wishes to extend their sincere gratitude and appreciation
to all those who have offered condolences and
remembered them in prayer during this time.
A memorial program for Justice Scalia
will be held at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 1
at the Mayflower Hotel,
1127 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC.
All family and friends are invited to attend
and participate in this tribute to the Justice.
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception
Rev. Msgr. Walter R. Rossi
Rector of the Basilica
Rev. Msgr. Vito A. Buonanno
Rev. Michael D. Weston
Rev. Raymond A. Lebrun, O.M.I.
Priests of the Basilica
Deacon Ira E. Chase, Sr.
Deacon Joseph Curtis, Jr.
Deacon Michael D. Yakir
Deacons
Peter Latona, D.M.A., Director of Music
Benjamin J. LaPrairie, B.M., Associate Director of Music
Nathan Davy, D.M.A., Assistant Organist
Robert Grogan, D.M.A., Carillonneur and Organist Emeritus
Choir of the Basilica of the National Shrine
Katie Baughman, D.M.A., Crossley Hawn, B.M.,
Susan Lewis Kavinski, B.M., Jacob Perry Jr., B.A.,
Cantors of the Basilica
Liturgical Ministers of the Basilica of the National Shrine
Knights of Columbus, Ushers of the Basilica of the National Shrine
Sisters Servants of Mary Immaculate, Sacristans of the Basilica of the
National Shrine
Acknowledgements
The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception gratefully acknowledges the following authors
and composers whose materials are employed in this worship
leaflet: Processional Hymn Text: Ps 90; Isaac Watts (1674-
1748), Music: ST. ANNE. Psalm Response Music: Richard
Rice. Gospel Acclamation Music: Peter Latona. Preface
Acclamation, Memorial Acclamation Music: ICEL 2011.
Great Amen Music: Peter Latona. Lord's Prayer Music:
Robert Snow, 1964. Communion Procession Text: St. 1-2,
Frederick W. Faber (1814-1863); St. 3 Mediator Dei Hymnal,
1955; 1955, GIA Publications, Inc., Music: SWEET
SACRAMENT. Song of Farewell Music: Howard Hughes.
Recessional Hymn Text: Michael Perry (b. 1942), 1982,
Hope Publishing Co., Music: THAXTED. Copyrighted materials
reprinted with permission under Onelicense.net #A-701285.
All rights reserved.
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception
Rev. Msgr. Walter R. Rossi, Rector
400 Michigan Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20017-1566
(202) 526-8300 www.nationalshrine.com
Mayflower Hotel
March 1, 2016
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the
United States. I was truly blessed to have had Nino at the
Court when I became a member. I was blessed many times
over the almost 25 years that we served together.
There were countless chats walking to the chambers after
a sitting or after our conferences. Those very brief
visits usually involved more laughter than anything else.
There were the many buck-each-other-up visits or checking
on one another after one of us had an unpleasant
experience. There were calls to test an idea or work
through a problem.
I treasure the many times we had lunch with our law
clerks at A.V.'s, where he invariably had an anchovy
pizza. My clerk family and I will always toast him at our
gatherings, but no anchovy pizza. I loved the eagerness
and satisfaction in his voice when he finished a writing
with which he was particularly pleased. ``Clarence, you
have got to hear this. It is really good.'' Whereupon, he
would deliver a dramatic reading.
He worked hard to get things right--the broad principles
and the details of law, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.
He was passionate about it all. It was all important to
him. None was beneath him, and all deserved and received
his full attention. In sports parlance, he gave everything
110 percent.
For the past few years, my place on the bench has been
between Nino and Steve Breyer. I loved the back and forth
that took place especially the passing of notes and the
whispered or muttered commentary. When Nino wanted to talk
quietly with me about something, he would lean far back in
his chair and say in an almost endearing tone, ``Brother
Clarence, what do you think ...?'' Of course, he would
offer his opinion of various matters. On one occasion, he
commented that one of our opinions that had become an
important precedent was just a horrible opinion, one of
the worst. I thought briefly about what he said and
whispered, ``Nino, you wrote it.''
In a sense, it is providential (and certainly not
probable) that we would serve together. I only knew of him
but had never met him. He was from the Northeast, while I
am from the Southeast. He came from a house of educators;
I, from a household of almost no formal education. But, we
shared our Catholic faith and our Jesuit education as well
as our sense of vocation.
For different reasons and from different origins, we
were heading in the same direction. So, we walked together
and worked together for a quarter century. Along the way,
we developed an unbreakable bond of trust and deep
affection. Many will fittingly, deservedly, and rightfully
say much about his intellect and jurisprudence. But, there
is so much more to this good man. As one of our colleagues
said, ``He filled the room.'' His passion and his sense of
humor were always on full display.
So was his love for Maureen, his family, his Church, our
country, and our Constitution.
Yesterday, I finished Eric Metaxis' biography of
Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One of Hitler's last acts before the
Allies defeated Germany was to have this man of God
executed. I thought of this memorial gathering as I read
Bishop Bell's eulogy of Bonhoeffer. With apologies, I
borrow liberally and quote loosely:
... with him a piece of my own life is carried to the
grave. Yet, our eyes are upon Thee. We believe in the
communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the
resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. We give
thanks to God for the life, the suffering, the witness of
our brother whose friends we were privileged to be. We
pray God to lead us, too, through his discipleship from
this world into His heavenly kingdom; to fulfil in us that
other word [that Dietrich used]: ``non potest non laetari
qui sperat in Dominum''--while in God confiding I cannot
but rejoice.
God bless you Brother Nino; God bless you!
Judge Laurence H. Silberman. A number of distinguished
scholars and practicing lawyers have spoken at length
about Justice Scalia's extraordinary impact on American
jurisprudence. Although I have been an admirer of his
judicial opinions for his entire career--except for the
rare occasion when he voted to overturn one of my
opinions--there is no need for me to add to this
outpouring of praise. Instead, I speak as one of his
oldest friends.
In 1974, after the notorious Saturday Night Massacre, I
came into the Justice Department as Deputy Attorney
General, under Attorney General Bill Saxby, the former
Senator. The Department was largely cut off from the White
House. I have said we were obligated to carry out the
President's policy, except insofar as we were bound to
support the Special Prosecutor's investigation of him.
Surely that was the most extraordinary task of any Justice
Department in American history.
I found many of the senior Presidential appointees in
shock, and understandably rather jumpy. The most important
Assistant Attorney General's position--certainly at that
point--was the one in charge of the Office of Legal
Counsel. The incumbent was played out having to navigate
through the Watergate reefs. He needed to be replaced. We
wanted a brilliant lawyer with steel nerves. I was charged
with finding a successor. A list of candidates was
compiled. The first person I interviewed was Antonin
Scalia, then occupying a quasi-academic role as Chairman
of the Administrative Conference. I have never been so
impressed. I immediately offered him the post subject to
the Attorney General's approval. White House approval in
those days was perfunctory given the President's weakness.
Nino Scalia was nominated by Richard Nixon and appointed
by the new President, Gerald Ford.
Almost immediately Nino was plunged into the most
delicate tasks. I had stopped the White House from
allowing a moving truck from carting off the former
President's papers until we formally opined as to whether
he owned them. Nino Scalia fashioned a brilliant opinion
based on historical precedent establishing Nixon's
ownership, but the Congress intervened. That led to
extensive litigation before we were sustained. I was
enormously impressed with Nino's work.
Then came a less serious legal issue, but an intensely
personal one. Bill Simon, the Deputy Secretary of
Treasury--an enormously wealthy man--designated the Energy
Czar by President Ford, issued an order depriving all
Department deputies of their car and driver. I planned to
resign because I was so financially strapped that I
couldn't afford to buy another car. To my astonishment,
Nino devised an exception for me. He arranged for my car
to have a police radio in the back and he obtained a gun
permit for my chauffeur. That qualified my car as a ``law
enforcement vehicle.'' Perhaps that foreshadowed our
common view on the Second Amendment.
In any event, we became close friends and I began, even
then, to think of Nino as a potential Supreme Court
nominee. After we left government, we both, along with Bob
Bork, went to AEI where we enjoyed brown bag lunches with
a group of distinguished, mostly conservative,
intellectuals and plotted a legal counter-revolution.
Nino and I stayed in constant touch when he returned to
academia at the University of Chicago Law School and I
went into the private sector. In 1980, as chairman, I
recruited him to join a committee of lawyers and law
professors supporting Ronald Reagan. After the election I
recommended Nino for various posts, including the one he
accepted--a seat on the DC Circuit--ideally fitted for an
administrative law expert.
We often turned to each other for career advice. When he
was subsequently offered the Solicitor General post, I
advised him to turn it down. I forcefully contended that
his chance of a Supreme Court nomination would be actually
reduced if he took that post--because of the hot button
social issues with which the Solicitor General would have
to contend. Then a year later, he returned the favor by
talking me into joining him on the DC Circuit.
In 1986 I was thrilled when he came into my office to
tell me privately that he was to be the Supreme Court
nominee. He asked me to represent him, which I immediately
agreed to do. He asked me for two reasons: He thought the
likeliest issues involved the proper limits that should
bind a judge's answers to doctrinal questions from
Senators. Second, of course, I provided free help.
For a brilliant judge, Nino was hopelessly impractical.
As I was going through his papers, I saw that AT&T owed
him a substantial amount of money. I was stunned. It
turned out that he had done legal consulting work some
years before he was a judge and had forgotten to send a
bill. He asked me if he should clean up his accounts by
sending the bill now. I told him sadly that it would be
rather awkward if AT&T sent him money after his
nomination.
Then before the hearings he came to me concerned about
what he thought might be an ethical question. Senator
Byrd, the powerful West Virginia Senator, had invited Nino
to join him at the Columbus Day parade in Charleston long
after the hearings would be over. I laughed and told him
that meant he was going to be confirmed, regardless of the
hearing, as the first Italian-American on the Court.
We teased each other constantly about our different
ethnic backgrounds. He always twitted me that as a New
Yorker he understood Jewish culture better than I did--
which was true--but I could be defensive. We were both
invited to a small dinner party of Harvard graduates to
meet the new president of Harvard, Neil Rudenstein, who
happened to be half Italian and half Jewish. We were both
concerned about the sweep of political correctness on
campuses. Rudenstein spoke and answered questions for an
hour. Afterward, as we left, we agreed that he sounded
good only about half the time. Then we got into a spirited
argument, with historical allusions, as to whether the
good half was Italian or Jewish.
Recently I was drawn to the new techniques developed by
various organizations to explore one's genetic background.
My wife bought a test for me and, to my astonishment, I
turned out to be much more Finnish than Jewish. I told
Nino and he decided to take the same test. Maureen was
quite apprehensive. She was worried that her asserted
Irish superiority over Italians could be jeopardized.
Although I don't feel free to disclose the complete Scalia
report, sure enough, Nino turned out to have a healthy
dose of Irish genes.
Although much of the advice we gave each other will
remain private, one issue we discussed has only in the
past few days become public. In 1996, as Senator Dole was
winning the nomination battle Nino called me with rather
momentous news. He had been approached by Congressman
Boehner, apparently on Senator Dole's behalf, to inquire
whether he would be willing to be the Vice Presidential
candidate. I knew that he loved his time on the Court, but
he could not help but be flattered. If Bob Dole were
elected, who knew what a Vice Presidency would lead to. It
was a shrewd notion. Nino, as you all know, had enormous
charm. Indeed, it had been thought when he was nominated
his charm would be employed to cobble together
conservative majorities on the Court, much like William
Brennan had forged different kinds of majorities. Of
course, that was an illusion because Nino cared more about
judicial reasoning than a judicial result. The latter
would only follow the former. Only if a Justice is less
concerned with reasoning can he or she bargain so
effectively.
Although I told him I thought he would be an enormously
effective politician, I was brutally honest, asking him if
he wanted to return to law practice or teaching. That took
him aback. I explained I was virtually certain Dole would
lose. He declined consideration.
I should include a description of one of the most
frightening days of my life. Nino, with two tickets to a
Baltimore/Yankees game, invited me to join him. Most human
beings have an inboard computer gene that prevents them
from driving at high speed too close to the car in front
of them, so there is sufficient room to deal with a sudden
stop. Nino apparently lacked the gene. By the time we
reached the stadium, I was sick in the stomach. I had
gotten nowhere asking him to back down.
We sat in the Orioles section of the stadium in the
midst of a group of rather large, fierce, beer-drinking
Orioles fans. Nino began to bellow supporting
encouragement for the Yankees, combined with loud
criticism of the umpires. After several innings one of the
largest and ugliest Orioles fans tapped Nino on the
shoulder and said, ``If you don't shut up, I am going to
punch you in the nose.'' Nino turned to me. Should I tell
him who Nino is? I said no, it might more likely get him
punched--and maybe me too.
Although over the years we played poker together and
brought our shotguns to a gun club, most notably, every
few months we lunched alone, invariably over a pizza and
red wine.
I had lunch with Nino only a few weeks ago at our new
pizza joint. We discussed the present political chaotic
situation. I wish I could relate our common views, but, of
course, it would be improper, so I will leave it to my
memoirs.
I hate to contemplate the end of those lunches. I will
miss Nino terribly.
Catherine Scalia Courtney, daughter. We are gathered here
because of one man. A man who was the only son begotten,
called ``father'' by many, revered by believers,
disparaged by others, a man who espoused justice and
truth. That man, of course, is Antonin Scalia.
Since Dad died, my siblings and I have been compiling a
list of ``Dadisms'' via email, shooting them off to each
other as they pop into our heads. A couple days ago when I
lamented to my brother Matthew that I didn't know what I
was thinking when I said I could speak today, he
encouragingly reminded me that ``You're not everybody
else. You're a Scalia.'' Then, in true Scalia fashion, he
quickly followed up with another of our favorites, ``Now
don't screw it up.''
So I hope Dad will forgive me if I screw it up. He might
ask, ``Is this of general interest?'' Yes, it is. As one
of the minority in the 5 to 4 split of his 9 children, I
want to share some of what Dad was to me for the last 49
years.
I was at the top half of the batting order--another
nine-member American institution--so for the first decades
of my life, as far as I was concerned, Dad was a Justice
Department lawyer and a law professor who couldn't seem to
hold down a job. During those nomadic years, between Jones
Day in Cleveland and Dad's appointment to the appeals
court in Washington, we moved eight times.
There were a few constants, besides the likelihood that
there was a new baby on the way. One constant was mass on
Sunday--and yes, every Holy Day (even that one that fell
right in the middle of our beach vacation!). Another non-
negotiable was family dinner every night. As busy as he
was, and as committed to his work, being home for dinner
was a priority. If he could make the time, we were
expected to be there, too. Finally, we had each other,
which was the greatest gift. No matter where we lived, we
were the Scalia family, and we knew that was something
important.
That's not to say it was easy being the daughter of Nino
Scalia. He could be demanding, and at times, impatient
even.
He was a poor estimator of travel time, never allowing
quite enough to get to that Latin mass which was 45--not
30--minutes away.
He was a stickler about words, pronunciation, and
grammar, which wasn't always a fun time. I mean, it wasn't
always fun. He repeated words over and over so we heard
the difference--Mary, marry, and merry. Cherry, not
``chairy.'' And our favorite: ``dunkey,'' not donkey.
As the son of an Italian professor, Dad's gift with
words and language was in his blood. He still knew some
German, and could bluff his way through Italian, and Latin
of course, but few knew that he was fluent in another
obscure language: the Op Language. He had learned it as a
kid in Queens, and he taught it to us as young children.
Being able to carry on a conversation in Op was a source
of family pride. Also, a good party trick. I was proud to
say my name was Copathoperopine Opelopisopabopeth
Scopalopiopa.
I cherish mental snapshots of Dad--on all fours chasing
us through the house as the Tickle Monster. A dollop of
shaving cream on my nose when I went up to say goodbye
before school. Belting out ``My Uncle Roasted a Kangaroo''
or ``Mr. Froggy Went-a-Courting'' at the piano. Waving his
arms at the grill, commanding the Saturday hamburgers to
``be juicy.'' Reading fairy tales--not Disney's Rapunzel
or the Little Golden Books' Snow White. He was an
originalist, after all, so our bedtime stories were the
Brothers Grimm, an old boxed, cloth, hardcover edition
with grotesque illustrations.
I will let the legal world discuss his judicial legacy,
but for me one decision stands above all others. That was
the landmark decision of 1960 to marry Maureen McCarthy.
She was the perfect foil. Anyone who knows Mom knows that
she is as smart as, dare I say smarter than, Dad. (I can
tell you for sure if you needed help with math homework,
you'd never ask him!) As he used to say, he did the
Constitution, and she did everything else. The day-to-day
running of the business that is a large family fell to
Mom.
He never made her work seem any less important than his
own, and he gave her credit for it. He used to jokingly
say that she was ``a wonderful little woman,'' and we all
sort of knew that he meant it. Packing up a huge household
for each of those moves, making sacrifices to stretch a
public service salary to feed and clothe a large family,
fighting to raise us in the faith in an increasingly
secular world. She supported him and stood by him so he
could focus on what I believe they both saw as his
calling.
I am so grateful that I was given the opportunity to
travel with Mom and Dad to Galway 2 years ago. For the
first time, I got to appreciate what I had never noticed
before as a kid. That zest for life, going at full speed,
trying to see it all and cram it all in, and his
partnership with Mom. He taught a class each morning for
New England Law/Boston, met us back at the house for a
quick lunch, and then we hit the road. Mom was the tour
guide--she had the books with turned down pages and Post-
it notes, and she read out our itinerary as he took the
wheel. ``What old church are we going to see today,
Maureen?,'' he'd ask. And he'd complain--about the clouds
that we were always heading toward, that this was a really
out-of-the-way place, that bikes shouldn't be allowed on
the narrow roads, and it's best not to say what he did
when he caught sight of a E.U. flag. ``Now, Nino,'' Mom
would say. But here's the thing--he always ended up doing
what Maureen told him to. This was their shtick, and it
took me 40-some years to see it. He deferred to Mom,
respected her opinion, and was happy following her lead
when he knew it was important to her.
The Scalia family feels blessed by all the prayers,
memories, and recollections shared with us over the last
few weeks. I know that for all of us, and especially Mom,
they have been a source of great comfort and consolation,
and have been an affirmation that his was a life well
lived, and he will be missed.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of
the United States. In my treasure trove of memories, an
early June morning, 1996. I was about to leave the Court
to attend the Second Circuit Judicial Conference at Lake
George. Justice Scalia entered, papers in his hand.
Tossing many pages onto my desk, he said: ``Ruth, this is
the penultimate draft of my dissent in the VMI case. It's
not yet in shape to circulate to the Court, but I want to
give you as much time as I can to answer it.'' On the
plane to Albany, I read the dissent. It was a zinger, of
the ``this wolf comes as a wolf'' genre. It took me to
task on things large and small. Among the disdainful
footnotes: ``The Court refers to the University of
Virginia at Charlottesville. There is no University of
Virginia at Charlottesville, there is only the University
of Virginia.'' (Professor Christopher, would your Dad say
the same thing today?) Thinking about fitting responses
consumed my weekend, but I was glad to have the extra days
to adjust the Court's opinion. My final draft was much
improved thanks to Justice Scalia's searing criticism.
Another indelible memory, the day the Court decided Bush
v. Gore, December 12, 2000, I was in chambers, exhausted
after the marathon: review granted Saturday, briefs filed
Sunday, oral argument Monday, opinions completed and
released Tuesday. No surprise, Justice Scalia and I were
on opposite sides. The Court did the right thing, he had
no doubt. I disagreed and explained why in a dissenting
opinion. Around 9 p.m. the telephone, my direct line,
rang. It was Justice Scalia. He didn't say ``get over
it.'' Instead, he asked, ``Ruth, why are you still at the
Court? Go home and take a hot bath.'' Good advice I
promptly followed.
Among my favorite Justice Scalia stories, when President
Clinton was mulling over his first nomination to the
Supreme Court, Justice Scalia was asked: ``If you were
stranded on a desert island with your new Court colleague,
who would you prefer, Larry Tribe or Mario Cuomo?''
Justice Scalia answered quickly and distinctly: ``Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.'' Within days, the President chose me.
Among Justice Scalia's many talents, he was a discerning
shopper. In Agra together in 1994, our driver took us to
his friend's carpet shop. One rug after another was tossed
onto the floor, leaving me without a clue which to choose.
Nino pointed to one he thought Maureen would like for
their beach house in North Carolina. I picked the same
design, in a different color. It has worn very well.
Once asked how we could be friends, given our
disagreement on lots of things, Justice Scalia answered:
``I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very
good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't
separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't
want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multimember
panel.'' Justice Scalia was fond of Justice Brennan, as
Justice Brennan was of him.
I will miss the challenges and the laughter he provoked,
his pungent, eminently quotable opinions, so clearly
stated that his words never slipped from the reader's
grasp, the roses he brought me on my birthday, the chance
to appear with him once more as supernumeraries at the
opera.
In his preface to the libretto of the opera buffo
``Scalia/Ginsburg,'' Justice Scalia described as the peak
of his days in Washington, DC, an evening in 2009 at the
Opera Ball, at the British Ambassador's Residence, when he
joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano
for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three
Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent
performer. How blessed I was to have a working colleague
and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high
spirits, and quick wit. In the words of a duet for tenor
Scalia and soprano Ginsburg, we were different, yes, in
our interpretation of written texts, yet one in our
reverence for the Court and its place in the U.S. system
of governance.
John Manning, law clerk to Justice Scalia. Mrs. Scalia,
the Scalia family, fellow law clerks, and distinguished
guests. I was one of Justice Scalia's early law clerks,
and today I'll say a few words about what it was like to
clerk for the great man, and then a bit about his larger
impact on the law.
Let me start with the clerkship: The Scalia chambers
were a tad raucous. Believe it or not, some people think
of conservatives as formal and hierarchical. Justice
Scalia was anything but that. Although he was (as he
joked) a ``Supreme Justice,'' and we were five youngsters,
he made it clear that no argument was out of bounds. At
the clerk conferences that took place the day before the
Court's conferences, it was basically a free for all. All
of his clerks would argue with one another and with the
Justice--strongly, passionately, often embarrassingly
loudly, and completely without fear that we would offend
the Boss. While three of us were conservative, and two
were liberal, our differences in those clerk conferences
rarely split along political lines. That wasn't what the
job was about. His job was to apply a legal methodology he
thought appropriate for a life-tenured judge in a
constitutional democracy. Our job was to help him do that.
Period.
There was an openness to all of this that made us feel
perfectly safe to disagree, even simply, with the Justice.
I'm not saying there weren't moments of doubt. As anyone
who clerked for him could tell you: Sometimes you'd be
making a point, and he'd sort of make a face--he'd tilt
his head, furrow his brow, and stare into space for what
seemed like an abnormally long period of time. It was a
tad disquieting. But we soon figured that this was just
his thinking face, and what it meant was that he was
actually thinking hard about what we were saying. About
the only time he ever overtly pulled rank was when one of
us got a little overinvested, and he'd say, ``Hey,
remember it's my name that has to go on the opinion.''
Especially with me for some reason, that was often
followed by the further observation, ``And I'm not a
nut.'' The whole thing was unforgettable.
The experience changed my life. His openness, his
enthusiasm, his clarity, his playfulness, his common
sense, his commitment to principle--all of this made even
the blandest legal issue seem vivid and human and
consequential. It is simply not natural to feel as
strongly as he made us feel about legislative history,
about the harmless error doctrine, about the borrowing of
statutes of limitations, about the level of generality of
some ancient common law tradition. Indeed, I confess that
it may not be perfectly healthy to feel as strongly as I
do about the Chevron doctrine to this very day. But I'm
working on it.
That was Justice Scalia's gift. He took the boring,
mundane, technical, everyday work of the law, and he
showed us what was at stake for our constitutional
democracy. Maybe that's why he got so much done. Just
think about statutes. It's easy to forget how different
the world was before Justice Scalia. How much more the
Court leaned on legislative history. How readily the Court
enforced the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
These practices had gone on, largely unquestioned, for
generations, in some cases for centuries.
In no time at all, Justice Scalia changed the terms of
debate. He showed that it was all about the allocation of
power. His resistance to legislative history was not just
empty formalism. It was about checking the transfer of
legislative power from Congress and the President to
unrepresentative committees, legislators, staff, or
lobbyists. His preference for letter over spirit was not
just a better way of finding legislative intent. It was
about protecting the messiness of American democracy
against the self-aggrandizing presumption that judges
could and should gloss over the awkward compromises that
are the staple of our legislative process--and, by
extension, of our democracy itself.
All of this was exhilarating. In fact, it's what
inspired me to go into teaching law. In the many times
Justice Scalia visited Harvard in the years I've been
there, he inspired my students too. He inspired them with
his plain outspokenness, his openness, his willingness to
take seriously the criticisms of legal novices he did not
know and would not see again, his acknowledgment to total
strangers that he did not always get things right, his
sense of humor, his generosity of spirit, and the simple
power of his ideas. He was a force of nature. Year after
year, I have had the experience of one or more of my 1L's
coming up to me, looking stricken, and saying to me,
``Professor Manning, I'm a liberal; is it OK that I agree
with Justice Scalia's opinions? I do my very best to
reassure them, ``There's nothing wrong with you.''
It's hard to believe the great man has passed on. But I
cling confidently to the thought that Justice Scalia will
continue to teach students long into the future--that
because of his clarity, his commitment to principle, and
his courage, his ideas will long outlive his days on
Earth. I myself will try to honor his memory by always
remembering his lesson that one's commitment to principle
is tested only when it hurts.
Justice Scalia was a great Justice. He was a wonderful
husband, father, and grandfather. He was also a wonderful
friend. He was kind and funny and generous. I can never
repay the debt I owe him. Like so many of us here today, I
would not have the life I have, a life I love, had it not
been for Justice Scalia.
Joan Larsen, law clerk for Justice Scalia. As one of the
Justice's former clerks, I want to begin with thanks to
Mrs. Scalia and to all of the Scalia family for your
incredible generosity to us over the past few weeks. In
the midst of your own incalculable grief, you saw also our
mourning and, despite our large numbers, you invited us
in. It has eased our pain tremendously to be with you and
to be a part of the remembrances for our beloved Boss. We
are truly grateful.
The clerks have been talking over the past few weeks,
and many have commented on how hard it was to stand vigil
over the Justice as he lay in repose in the Great Hall.
Alone with our thoughts as we stood on the cold marble
floor, memories came flooding back. The most challenging
task, nearly everyone reported, was not to keep from
crying (for that might have been forgiven) but instead to
keep from grinning. The Justice was fundamentally a happy
man, and it is impossible for us to remember him without
remembering the zeal with which he embraced life. Even
when things were not going his way on the Court, he was
generally upbeat. He sang in his chambers; he whistled in
the corridors; his sonorous laugh reverberated throughout
the courtroom. His wit was sharp, and he delighted in
matching it against anyone foolish enough to try.
He held us, and himself, to very high standards. He was
sometimes impatient when we would fall short of the mark.
But he was always quick to forgive, to teach, and to move
on.
I remember keenly the time that I committed what in his
chambers amounted to a mortal sin: I handed him a draft
opinion which cited Webster's Third. This, just one term
after his famous dictionary case--MCI v. AT&T--had made
clear for all the world that the third edition of
Webster's was not, in his estimation, a dictionary at all.
``Did you not read, before coming to this Court, the
opinions of the last term?,'' he boomed--displeased, but
not angry. The prudent response at that moment would have
been to beg the opinion back, and to have returned it
immediately with all reference to Webster's expunged--the
OED shining brightly in its place.
But panic must have overtaken my brain's executive
function and, instead, I foolishly tried an excuse. ``Umm,
yes, Justice,'' I said. ``I remembered that you had strong
views about dictionaries. But what I couldn't remember was
just which one you didn't like. So I made sure to work
only from the one you keep on display in the front
office.''
His eyebrows rose. What momentarily flashed as anger in
his eyes immediately softened into disbelief. It was no
longer about me, or the opinion, but about the prospect
that that blasphemous book could be residing in his front
office. I could see him thinking: ``It could not be so!''
He rose and walked to the dictionary stand. Taking the
open pages of the large leather-bound book in his hands,
he proceeded, in painstakingly slow motion, to flip over
the cover. Did he have me, or did I have him? Then THUNK
went the book as its front met its back. He glanced down
at the cover, and then his eyes met mine. I dared for a
nanosecond to feel redeemed, even victorious. Then,
without a moment lost, he reclaimed the advantage. ``This,
my dear,'' he pronounced, ``is but a trap laid for the
unwary.'' And his enormous laugh echoed through the
chambers.
I had been careless, reckless even; and I had been
schooled; but I had been forgiven.
I am often asked what it was like to clerk for Justice
Scalia; and more particularly to be a woman clerking for
Justice Scalia. ``Much like being a man clerking for
him,'' is my response. I have spoken to many of the
Justice's female clerks in the days since his passing, and
the same story repeats. He demanded as much from us as
from our brethren. And he gave us just as many
opportunities to show our stuff.
What better preparation for any of us, male or female,
than to have matched wits with the Justice? That we almost
always came up short should not be dwelled upon. That was
inevitable. What is remarkable is that he cared enough
about us to ask our opinions and to debate with us when he
disagreed. I have often wondered, what was in this for
him? He could have easily done the job without us. But
what was in it for us was invaluable. With each thrust and
parry we got sharper. What an incomparable gift to a young
lawyer.
As we have grown in our legal careers, the lessons of
the clerkship have stayed with us. We each have our
favorite grammar lesson: ``Never use impact as a verb.''
``A condition contrary to fact requires the subjunctive.''
``The possessive case precedes a gerund.''
And his habits of careful thought, meticulous research,
and economy of language are ones that we all try to
emulate. So many of the clerks have said that when they
write, they still write for him. That has been my
experience. As I struggled to write my own first opinions,
I was nearly paralyzed by the prospect that he might
someday read them.
This, the writing of an opinion, leads me in a
roundabout way to the story I'd like to end with. It is a
story I meant to tell the Justice. Indeed I had called
Angela a few weeks back to inquire when he might be in
chambers. ``Just Wednesday next week,'' she replied,
``then he'll be heading out of town.'' Wednesday came, and
I was deep into writing a bear of an opinion; the day
slipped away. ``I'll call him Monday,'' I thought. Of
course, Monday didn't come.
But I thought I would share with you now what I wish I
had shared with him then.
As a new Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court, I have
been making the rounds introducing myself to the people of
my State--speaking to small groups in church basements and
libraries and courthouses. Twice in the few weeks before
his passing, the most extraordinary thing happened. When I
got to the part of my bio where I say, ``and then I
clerked for Justice Scalia,'' some members of the audience
spontaneously burst into applause. These were not groups
of lawyers or judges; just groups of ordinary
Michiganders.
The first time this happened, I'll admit I was startled.
Most people, after all, cannot name a Supreme Court
Justice; fewer still have formed an opinion. I said as
much, and that I would be sure to pass their enthusiasm
along to the Justice. ``He would like to hear that,'' I
said. Then I went on with my remarks. When I got to the
end of my speech, a member of the audience stuck up his
hand: ``Who did you say you clerked for again?'' he asked.
``What?'' I thought to myself. ``Did this guy walk in
late? We just had this whole thing ...'' But I answered:
``Justice Scalia.'' This time, most of the crowd got to
its feet and gave him a standing ovation.
``We just wanted to have the chance to do that for him
again,'' the man explained.
Me too.
Mary Clare Scalia Murray, daughter. Thank you for being
here and for your kind words of sympathy, for your
wonderful affection for our father, for the stories of
your friendships, and most especially for your prayers.
There have been many remarks about Dad's faith and the
central role it played in his life. For many of us the
only way to comprehend the loss of our father, friend, or
colleague, is to place it in the framework of God's plan
and God's mercy, particularly during this year which Pope
Francis has named the Year of Mercy.
When we say that his faith was important to him, some
may understand that to mean he was Catholic, he went to
church.
What Dad's, and really Mom and Dad's, practice of faith
meant for us growing up was that we never missed Sunday
mass unless we were sick (in which case we'd better plan
on staying in that bed for the day), and that as a family
we drove however far was necessary to find what Dad
considered an appropriate liturgy. Our Sundays in Chicago
were especially adventurous: rather than walking 10
minutes to the neighborhood church, Dad drove us 30
minutes to a city church led by Italian priests whose
accents were so thick that it was hard to tell when they
were speaking English or Latin.
We can tell stories about this as part of our strict
upbringing, but what that approach to faith did for us was
give us a framework of obedience to the Church and instill
in us an acceptance of the basic obligations we owe her.
We also learned that though worship is a deeply personal
experience, it is built on centuries of tradition and
history rich with meaning.
Faith in our home was also the intellectual exercise of
explaining the teachings of the Church through reason.
There were frequent conversations about sermons, good and
bad, and about why the Church taught certain things and
why the teachings made sense for mankind, why we could
understand them as truths.
In the many stories that have been published or shared
since Dad's death, I've continued to grow in my
understanding of my father and in his daily exercise of
God's love, which is what mercy is. His ability to form
deep, lifelong friendships with people of varying views;
his generosity and humility in reaching out to others, to
strangers, to people from all walks of life. Now the
unbelievable outpouring of respect and affection from
people throughout the country because of what he
symbolized to them. These are the fruits of my father's
faith and of God's mercy through him.
The events of the last 2 weeks have been physically and
emotionally exhausting, but also spiritually renewing. The
procession of thousands of Americans through the Supreme
Court as Dad lay in repose brought many of us great
consolation. As for the funeral mass, we really did
initially consider a small private Latin mass. That's what
Dad would have wanted. But it fell to me to remind my
mother, as it so often does, since when do we care what
Dad wants? He wouldn't want us to change our way of doing
things so suddenly.
As a family we recognized that the final opportunity to
pray in a Church with his body should be shared with the
large number of friends and faithful that relied on him.
The joy and peace from that mass were a gift to many, who
continue to respond to it.
Since his death I have learned so much about my father's
faith and how he lived it. This is the great mercy we have
been given through this loss: that our love for him and
our understanding of his legacy to us continue to grow
even in death. That we grow in a new understanding of
God's love through the words and memories of others. Some
of my friends have expressed this so beautifully in the
Jewish tradition--may his memory be a blessing. It is
that, and also a source of grace, and an opportunity to
grow in faith. I can't think of any greater legacy.
Thank you.
[all]