Interesting, especially, that he mentions Screwtape -- because Scalia and Lewis have in common that I disagree violently with both but understand those who are swayed by their ideas.
Great read, thanks for posting. Stupid, but constitutional really could describe many things. I thought that this was interesting: No. Just six. That was a serious question! What I do wish is that we were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we’re doing when we interpret the Constitution. I mean, that’s sort of rudimentary. It’s sort of an embarrassment, really, that we’re not. But some people think our job is to keep it up to date, give new meaning to whatever phrases it has. And others think it’s to give it the meaning the people ratified when they adopted it. Those are quite different views. I see the divergence in opinion as to how to interpret as a good and healthy thing.Really? So if you had the chance to have eight other justices just like you, would you not want them to be your colleagues?
The more I read that paragraph, the more confused I was. Does he want everyone to be an originalist? Because I'm not, and I frankly can't believe that any sane person is (bring it on, hubski). So if you asked me I guess I would everyone to be an evolutionist or whatever the opposite of his view is. Except, like you said, I don't want that, for the same reason that I (and Scalia) would be worried if every decision was unanimous. That's unhealthy. But in another sense, I understand and agree with him. The fact that some members of the SC are trying to preserve the document and others are trying to contextualize it -- that obscures the true liberal/conservative split of the court (might be a good thing) and leads to decisions potentially rendered for the wrong reasons. EDIT: From the words of the man himself...And that was not originally a flaw. But the country has changed so much.