The title links to the Time's article.
Here's something even our favourite federal blogger will like: Scalia on Hahvad:
“By and large,” he said, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well (Rumpole wails: "say it an't so Mr. Markus") , but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?”
So which is it David: Silk purse or sow's ear? (ps. we know we're a "know nothing peon" who did not go to a "best and brightest" law school. But, uh, isn't the phrase "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" and not the reverse ? Just wonderin...)
In response to another question, Justice Scalia made a point about how he interprets statutes. He used an opinion by Justice Stevens in an important administrative law case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, to explain why he believed that comments from legislators were irrelevant in figuring out what statutes meant.
“Do I have to defer to John Paul Stevens because he’s the author?” Justice Scalia asked. “ ‘Oh, John, you wrote Chevron. You must know what it means.’ Of course not! John doesn’t know what it means! Once you let loose the judicial opinion, John, it has a life of its own, and it means what it says.”
“Now why should legislation be any different?” Justice Scalia added. “Once Congress floats that text out there, it has its own life. It means what it means. It means what it says.
Hmm...the authors of a law don't know what they wrote. "It means what it means" says Nino.
Hmm...what those who wrote it think it means - that means nothing.
Hmmm....sort of puts a dent in "original interpretation" huh?
But what do we know? We didn't pahk our cah in the Havahd yahd. *
We also don't run $700 million dollar ponzi schemes after going to Yale and Havahd law school as Havahd law school alumnus Mark Drier just pled guilty to on Monday.