Daily Inspiration Quote by Antonin Scalia

Scalia’s jab lands because it pretends to be a simple, almost baffled question while smuggling a full theory of constitutional legitimacy. “Why in the world” performs incredulity, as if the opposing view is not merely wrong but faintly absurd. “Interpreted” is the loaded word: he frames constitutional adjudication as an act of discretionary meaning-making, not faithful application. And “nine lawyers” is the dagger. He reduces the Supreme Court from an institution with a civic aura to a cramped committee of credentialed technicians, implying that letting them “interpret” is letting an elite guild govern by wordplay.

The specific intent is polemical: to cast originalism as common sense and living constitutionalism as judicial hubris. The subtext is democratic suspicion. Scalia’s line suggests the Constitution should not be a flexible instrument tuned by judicial sensibilities; it should be a fixed text whose meaning is anchored elsewhere: in original public meaning, in the people’s ratification, and in the legislature’s primacy. By calling the justices “lawyers,” he also strips away the idea that their role is uniquely statesmanlike. They are professionals with habits and incentives, capable of turning ambiguity into power.

Contextually, this fits Scalia’s broader project: making interpretive method a culture-war front. He understood that legitimacy is rhetorical before it’s doctrinal. If you can persuade the public that constitutional change via courts is rule by “nine lawyers,” you’ve already put the burden on your opponents to justify why unelected expertise should outrank democratic politics.