Quote of the Day

From Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia on the subject of a pliable Constitution, as quoted in a speech by Karl Rove to the Federalist Society yesterday:

Panta rei ["everything is constantly changing"] is not a sufficiently informative principle of constitutional interpretation. What is it that the judge must consult to determine when, and in what direction, evolution has occurred? Is it the will of the majority, discerned from newspapers, radio talk shows, public opinion polls and chats at the country club? Is it the philosophy of Hume, or of John Rawls, or of John Stuart Mill, or of Aristotle?

As soon as the discussion goes beyond the issue of whether the Constitution is static, the evolutionists divide into as many camps as there are individual views of the good, the true and the beautiful. I think that is inevitably so, which means that evolutionism is simply not a practical constitutional philosophy.

I know he can come across as a firebrand at times, but I want more justices like him.