I would like to know what everyone, but especially anyone who's a lawyer or otherwise legally expert, thinks about this.

I watched most of Scalia's C-SPAN interview the other night. The man may well be a jerk but he's an extremely intelligent jerk. Two points he made stand out and require further discussion.

1) He put forth the idea that US Constitution has a fixed meaning which in many instances can be resolved by the text itself and what it meant to those who wrote it at the time. For example, given that capital punishment was extant at the time of ratification, it is senseless to argue that the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" by definition makes capital punishment today unconstitutional. It may be a bad idea. It may be stupid. It may be vicious. It may not solve anything. But it's not unconstitutional. Per Scalia, to argue that our ideas and values have changed and therefore so has the constitution is to make the constitution meaningless. That's how Scalia sees it anyway.

Discuss. What are the weaknesses in this line of reasoning and if we agree that meanings must change how do we avoid saying the constitution is whatever we say it is?

2) Scalia was openly contemptuous of cameras in the court. He said that much of what justices do is stuff that requires intense knowledge of the legal code. It's not just them being philosopher-kings. He claimed that the only positive thing cameras might do is answer stupid questions (my interpretation, not his word though his tone did change to mocking) about why it's a good idea for SC justices to be lawyers/judges or law professors as legal professionals are the only people with the knowledge or patience to do this work or find it interesting.

Should SC justices have to be legally certified in some way? Scalia seems to think so.