watched all 4 - very fascinating - I hope that's my mind (I know it'll be my body :)) at 72........your Stephen Carter quote is very apt - I love what he said about abortion - it's not an applicable topic to the Constitution, we need to make laws for or against it apart from the Constitution........I think this may have something to do with the "dark periods" he went through in the mid-90's - frustration with a society that can't govern itself and use common sense on issues like abortion, torture, etc......I love how tongue tied Leslie Stahl got when he asked her "how is extracting information considered punishment?" - great question that very clearly shows that even though interrogation tactics can cross the line - they have nothing to do with "cruel and unusual punishment".......thanks for sharing this - Originalism makes a lot of sense - even to me - and I don't consider myself conservative.........

Heh, I actually watched these in my government class today.

I read a book on the Renquist Court a few months ago, and it really made me love the courts more than any other branch of government. Scalia writes some of the most scathingly witty dissenting opinions, and they are a real treat to read if you ever get the chance. Of the Renquist Court, he's my second favorite justice, just behind my darling dearest Sandra Day O'Connor :).

Originalism makes a lot of sense - even to me - and I don't consider myself conservative...

It should. It's how it works in every other area of the law, from murder to maritime law. We don't go around calling our laws "living statutes," saying that the law means one thing one year, but not the next. It then begs the question: Why should we have a written constitution, or even laws to begin with, if their permanence is so easily dashed personal whim?

A "living Constitution" is anything but. It is a cadaver; a marionette who strings are pulled in which every way a justice sees fit. To call something "living" in any other context is to describe something from the past, usually ancient, having force in the present; a living tradition or a living language, which makes the euphemism "living constitution" a rather odd and disingenuous phrase.

Scalia is great. A couple of years ago there was a really good debate between Strossel (of the ACLU) and Scalia. I'm sure you can find it on the internet somewhere. Pure intellectual recreation.