Anglo-American law, and Scalia especially, is very different from European law and this interview is a perfect example of how American judges focus on the letter of the law as opposed to the idea behind the law (so to speak). I could explain it in more detail, but 2 bottles of wine makes me not bother.

This is a fascinating and enlightening interview.

Regarding the activist Constitution interpretation, Justice Scalia explained:

Much of the harm that has been done in recent years by activist constitution interpretation is made possible by a theory which says that unlike an ordinary law which doesn’t change – it means what it meant when it was enacted and will always mean that – the Constitution changes from decade to decade to comport with the “evolving standards of decency” that mark the progress of a maturing society. In other words we have a morphing constitution. And of course it is up to the court to decide when it morphs and how it morphs. That’s generally paraded as the “living constitution” and unfortunately that philosophy has made enormous headway with lawyers and judges but even with John Q Public.

To make things change you don’t need a constitution. The function of a Constitution is to rigidify, to ossify, NOT to facilitate change. You want change? All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. Things will change as fast as you like. My Constitution, very flexible changing on you. You want right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens that it is a good idea, and pass a law. And then you find out, the results are worst than we ever thought, you can repeal the law. That’s flexibility. The reason people want the Supreme Court to declare that abortion is a constitutional right is precisely to rigidify that right, it means it sweeps across all fifty states and it is a law now and forever or until the Supreme Court changes its mind. That’s not flexibility.

"By trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all.