Stephen Maturin

Yep, that's right: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is coming here on March 17. He'll be giving an open-to-the-public speech at the law school and then attending a luncheon with law school faculty, administrators and contributors.

If this goes as past Supreme Court justice appearances have, there will be something of a "softballs only" rule in effect for any question-and-answer session following the speech. However, I'm hoping to get a chance for a minute or two of genuine discussion with Justice Scalia after the speech or during the luncheon. Does anyone have a C-SS question s/he'd like to have asked?

Note: I've promised the law school dean that I won't be my usual obnoxious, smartass, foaming-at-the-mouth judicial activist liberal self during these events. Please keep that in mind when forming your questions.

Alonzo Fyfe

Yes.

Ask him if he can identify even he thinks that the establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits anything at all?

Or if, as seems to be the view expressed in several recent speeches, it is the legislature that ought to evaluate the constitutionality of various pieces of legislation, and that the Supreme Court should not bother itself with issues of what is constitutional and what is not.

nogods4me

Ask him if he thinks that posting the "Five Pillars of Islam" in courtrooms would violate C/S Separation.

beejay

I like that. But I'm afraid it is too easy for him to slide around that without giving a specific answer.

"If the Congress adopted 'Jesus is Lord' as the national motto, would it be constitutional to display it in government buildings? What about 'Catholics are destined for Hell?"

I'm assuming you are getting one question with no follow up, since to ask a follow up question would be arguing with the esteemed guest.

SLD

Most likely the first thing he will say or at least before he takes questions is that he cannot comment on pending cases or on potential cases that might come before him. IOW, it is unlikely that you will get an answer to a specific question. Better to ask him more general philosophical questions than questions as to how he would rule on a certain issue.

I would get a good quote from Madison about separation of c-s (look at www.positiveatheism.org) and then point to one of his quotes and politely (emphasize that) why he thinks that Madison's views on this are wrong and whether he thinks in general that Madison's views or the views of Jefferson and other founders should be such a strong guide to interpreting the Establishment Clause. Respectfully, your honor, sir.

Of course you must let us know how he responds.

SLD

RichardMorey

While I disagree with him, he is a very entertaining speaker. You will enjoy the talk.

PLEASE don't be your "usual obnoxious, smartass, foaming-at-the-mouth judicial activist liberal." He deserves respect, too. Don't make us liberals look bad by being obnoxious.

GaryP

In light of this excellent observation, perhaps a question as to why he DID comment about the "under God" case would appropriate.

fromtheright

I would like an answer to that question.

4th Generation Atheist

How about asking him what it would take to get him to quit the Supremes and move to, say, Guam?

(If anyone reading this is from Guam, I am truly sorry....)

SLD

Actually I think it's OK. In my first year of law school, Justice Kennedy came down to speak and it was quite enlightening. The first thing he did say was no questions about pending cases or potential cases. The reason for that is obvious - by answering the question they can be subject to a motion to recuse for having a preconceived bias. However, the Supremes do occasionally invite petitions for certiorari on cases where they want to make a ruling. Often there are splits in the circuits that they think are in need of resolving and sometimes they want to clarify a particular area of the law that has gotten murky through various rulings.

At the same time, I suspect that is not what Scalia had in mind when he said that. He wants a reversal. Just as he wants a reversal of every c-s decision of the past 55 years.

One of the things that was asked of Kennedy was how he approached Constitutional questions. I was expecting a strict founders constructionist approach as advocated on these board by my good friend "FromTheRight". His response was far more interesting and complex and I have ultimately adopted it as my own approach - a mixture of textual analysis, original intent, and historic analysis. All in all, I think you will enjoy listening to Scalia, and you may, if you are not obnoxious, trip him up by getting him to talk about strict construction but to admit that his views don't coincide with Madison - the author of the First Amendment.

R/ SLD

SLD