[Senate Document 114-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





 
                                          

                                   ANTONIN SCALIA

                       ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES

                                  MEMORIAL TRIBUTES

                                       IN THE

                            CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

             [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
             






                                           

             [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
             

                               Antonin Scalia







 
                                                           S. Doc. 114-12
                                                           
                                   ANTONIN SCALIA

                       ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES

                                  MEMORIAL TRIBUTES

                                       IN THE

                            CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

             [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
             

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2017
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                           




                            Compiled under the direction

                                       of the

                             Joint Committee on Printing



                                 Order for Printing

               Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
             that Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Justice 
             Scalia for the Record until March 10, 2016, and that all 
             tributes be printed as a Senate document.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so 
             ordered.


                                      FOREWORD

               On October 5, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee held 
             a hearing for the purpose of ``Considering the Role of 
             Judges Under the Constitution of the United States.'' 
             Justice Antonin Scalia, who at that point had served on 
             the Court for 25 years, was invited to testify. He began 
             his remarks by telling the committee how he often asks law 
             students what they think makes America a free country. 
             Usually, he indicated, the response will be one of the 
             ``marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights.'' He then 
             said this:

               But then I tell them, ``If you think a bill of rights is 
             what sets us apart, you're crazy.'' Every banana republic 
             in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for 
             life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the 
             former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist 
             Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. 
             It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of 
             the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of 
             the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and 
             anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the 
             government will be called to account. Whoa, that is 
             wonderful stuff!
               Of course, just words on paper. What our Framers would 
             have called a ``parchment guarantee.'' And the reason is 
             that the real constitution of the Soviet Union--you think 
             of the word ``constitution''--it doesn't mean a ``bill'' 
             it means ``structure'': say a person has a sound 
             constitution [you mean] he has a sound structure. The real 
             constitution of the Soviet Union--which our Framers 
             debated [our constitution] that whole summer in 
             Philadelphia in 1787, they didn't talk about the Bill of 
             Rights, that was an afterthought wasn't it--that 
             constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the 
             centralization of power in one person or in one party. And 
             when that happens, the game is over, the Bill of Rights is 
             just what our Framers would call a ``parchment 
             guarantee.''
               So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is 
             the structure of our government.

               Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the defense and 
             preservation of that structure. He understood the role of 
             the judiciary and the role of the elected branches, and 
             the need to respect the differences between and among 
             them. He understood how the division of power among the 
             branches preserved liberty, and how encroachments or 
             usurpations by one branch of another's prerogatives 
             threatened liberty.
               All Americans owe Justice Scalia a tremendous debt of 
             gratitude for his life of committed public service. 
             Through 30 years of service on the Supreme Court he was 
             always guided by a belief that Justices should determine 
             what the language of our Constitution and laws require and 
             render a decision based on those requirements, not their 
             own preferences.
               Legislators, along with the constituents who elected 
             them, should be particularly grateful for his recognition 
             of, and commitment to, the principle that our system 
             assigns the lawmaking power to the legislature, not the 
             judiciary.
               This volume is a collection of tributes Members of 
             Congress gave to Justice Scalia following his tragic and 
             premature death last year. It is hoped the remarks herein 
             convey our deep sense of gratitude for the life, work, and 
             legacy of Justice Scalia.

             Senator Roy Blunt                Senator Chuck Grassley
             Chairman                         Chairman
             Committee on Rules and 
               Administration                 Committee on the 
                                                Judiciary








                                      CONTENTS
             Order for Printing....................................
                                                                    iii
             Foreword..............................................
                                                                      v
             Biography.............................................
                                                                     ix
             Proceedings in the Senate:
                Tributes by Senators:
                    Bennet, Michael F., of Colorado................
                                                                     26
                    Blumenthal, Richard, of Connecticut............
                                                                     22
                    Blunt, Roy, of Missouri........................
                                                                     19
                    Boxer, Barbara, of California..................
                                                                     25
                    Cardin, Benjamin L., of Maryland...............
                                                                 22, 51
                    Casey, Robert P., Jr., of Pennsylvania.........
                                                                     35
                    Cochran, Thad, of Mississippi..................
                                                                     26
                    Cornyn, John, of Texas 
                     ...............................................
                     ....
                                                         15, 19, 27, 51
                    Cotton, Tom, of Arkansas.......................
                                                                     33
                    Cruz, Ted, of Texas............................
                                                                     46
                    Donnelly, Joe, of Indiana......................
                                                                     26
                    Durbin, Richard J., of Illinois................
                                                                 12, 24
                    Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming...................
                                                                     18
                    Fischer, Deb, of Nebraska......................
                                                                     31
                    Franken, Al, of Minnesota......................
                                                                     21
                    Grassley, Chuck, of Iowa.......................
                                                                  7, 49
                    Hatch, Orrin G., of Utah 
                     ...............................................
                     .......
                                                             12, 25, 49
                    Heller, Dean, of Nevada........................
                                                                     45
                    Inhofe, James M., of Oklahoma..................
                                                                     42
                    Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia....................
                                                                     26
                    Klobuchar, Amy, of Minnesota...................
                                                                     17
                    Lankford, James, of Oklahoma...................
                                                                     33
                    Leahy, Patrick J., of Vermont..................
                                                                     11
                    Lee, Mike, of Utah.............................
                                                                     21
                    McConnell, Mitch, of Kentucky 
                     ........................................
                                                          3, 11, 22, 25
                    Murray, Patty, of Washington...................
                                                                     17
                    Reid, Harry, of Nevada.........................
                                                                      6
                    Rounds, Mike, of South Dakota..................
                                                                     50
                    Rubio, Marco, of Florida.......................
                                                                     28
                    Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama.....................
                                                                     36
                    Vitter, David, of Louisiana....................
                                                                 34, 43
                    Warner, Mark R., of Virginia...................
                                                                     25
                    Wicker, Roger F., of Mississippi...............
                                                                     44
             Proceedings in the House of Representatives:
                Tributes by Representatives:
                    Comstock, Barbara, of Virginia 
                     ............................................
                                                             55, 65, 68
                    DeSantis, Ron, of Florida......................
                                                                     65
                    Fortenberry, Jeff, of Nebraska.................
                                                                     60
                    Gohmert, Louie, of Texas 
                     ...............................................
                     .......
                                                             68, 78, 79
                    Goodlatte, Bob, of Virginia....................
                                                                     57
                    Jackson Lee, Sheila, of Texas..................
                                                                 79, 80
                    Jeffries, Hakeem S., of New York...............
                                                                     79
                    King, Peter T., of New York....................
                                                                     61
                    King, Steve, of Iowa...........................
                                                                 80, 81
                    LaMalfa, Doug, of California...................
                                                                     53
                    McCarthy, Kevin, of California.................
                                                                 53, 54
                    Roskam, Peter J., of Illinois..................
                                                                     63
                    Rothfus, Keith J., of Pennsylvania.............
                                                                     67
                    Sessions, Pete, of Texas.......................
                                                                     77
                    Speier, Jackie, of California..................
                                                                     80
                    Wagner, Ann, of Missouri.......................
                                                                     59
                    Walker, Mark, of North Carolina................
                                                                     62
                    Wilson, Joe, of South Carolina.................
                                                                     54
             Memorial Services
                Supreme Court......................................
                                                                     85
                Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate 
                  Conception.......................................
                                                                     87
                Mayflower Hotel....................................
                                                                    101







                                      BIOGRAPHY

               Antonin Gregory Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in 
             Trenton, NJ, the only child of Eugene and Catherine 
             Scalia. His father, who had emigrated from Sicily as a 
             young man, was a professor of Romance languages at 
             Brooklyn College. His mother was a schoolteacher and one 
             of seven children of Italian immigrants. When Antonin was 
             a child, his family moved to Queens, where he played 
             stickball, rooted for the Yankees, and joined the Boy 
             Scouts. He was valedictorian of the Xavier High class of 
             1953 and valedictorian of the Georgetown University class 
             of 1957. He attended Harvard Law School, where he earned 
             high honors and was a notes editor for the law review.
               The smartest thing Antonin Scalia did at Cambridge was 
             go on a blind date with a Radcliffe undergraduate named 
             Maureen McCarthy, whom he would marry on September 9, 
             1960. As a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960 
             to 1961, Antonin Scalia studied in Europe with Maureen 
             before settling in Cleveland, where he worked at the law 
             firm of Jones Day from 1961 to 1967. Antonin Scalia left 
             private practice to become a professor of law at the 
             University of Virginia from 1967 to 1971, and then served 
             as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications 
             Policy from 1971 to 1972, as Chairman of the 
             Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972 
             to 1974, and as Assistant Attorney General for the Office 
             of Legal Counsel from 1974 to 1977.
               He returned to academic life in 1977 when he joined the 
             faculty at the University of Chicago. He was also visiting 
             professor of law at both Georgetown and Stanford, and was 
             chairman of the American Bar Association's section of 
             administrative law from 1981 to 1982 and its conference of 
             section chairmen from 1982 to 1983.
               In 1982 President Reagan chose Antonin Scalia to join 
             the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
             Circuit, and 4 years later nominated him to the Supreme 
             Court of the United States. Antonin Scalia was confirmed 
             by the Senate, 98 to 0, and took his seat on the bench on 
             September 26, 1986. He served the court for nearly 30 
             years before his death on February 13, 2016.
               Antonin Scalia loved music, hunting, and old movies. He 
             was a devout Catholic, a proud American, a devoted father, 
             and a loving husband. He is survived by Maureen--his wife 
             of 55 years--their 9 children, and their 36 grandchildren.
?



                                           

                                  MEMORIAL TRIBUTES

                                         FOR

                                  ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

                                   ANTONIN SCALIA


                              Proceedings in the Senate
                                              Monday, February 22, 2016
                                       PRAYER
               The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following 
             prayer:
               Let us pray.
               Our Father in Heaven, Your counsel stands firm and sure. 
             Fashion the hearts of our lawmakers so that they desire to 
             do Your will. Today, as we remember George Washington's 
             farewell address, may we not forget that our Nation is not 
             strong merely because of military might, but that 
             integrity and righteousness are also critical to national 
             security. Lord, keep our Senators from forgetting Your 
             promise to surround the righteous with the shield of Your 
             Divine favor. Help us all to continue to find hope in Your 
             loving kindness, for we trust in Your Holy Name. May we 
             take refuge in the unfolding of Your loving providence.
               And, Lord, thank You for the life and integrity of 
             Justice Antonin Scalia.
               We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.
                MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
               Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
             that the Senate observe a moment of silence in memory of 
             Justice Antonin Scalia.

               The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so 
             ordered.
               (Moment of silence.)

               Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to say a few 
             words about a towering figure of the Supreme Court who 
             will be missed by many. Antonin Scalia was literally one 
             of a kind. In the evenings, he loved nothing more than a 
             night at the opera house. During the day, he often starred 
             in an opus of his own.
               For most watchers of the Court, even many of Scalia's 
             most ardent critics, the work he produced was brilliant, 
             entertaining, and unmissable. Words had meaning to him. He 
             used them to dissect and refute, to amuse and beguile, to 
             challenge and persuade. Even when his arguments didn't 
             carry the day, his dissents often gathered the most 
             attention anyway.
               President Obama said that Justice Scalia will be 
             ``remembered as one of the most consequential judges and 
             thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.'' I certainly 
             agree. It is amazing that someone who never served as 
             Chief Justice could make such an indelible impact on our 
             country. He is, in my view, in league with Oliver Wendell 
             Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and John Marshall Harlan as 
             perhaps the most significant Associate Justices ever.
               I first met him when we both served in the Ford 
             administration's Justice Department. I was fortunate, as a 
             young man, to be invited to staff meetings that featured 
             some of the most influential conservative judicial minds 
             of the time. Robert Bork was there. He was the Solicitor 
             General. Larry Silberman was there. He was the Deputy 
             Attorney General. Everyone in the Department agreed on two 
             things: One, Antonin Scalia was the funniest lawyer on the 
             staff; and, two, he was the brightest.
               Antonin Scalia was usually the smartest guy in whatever 
             room he chose to walk into. Of course, he didn't need to 
             tell you he was the smartest. You just knew it.
               I came back to Washington a few years later as a Senator 
             on the Judiciary Committee, serving there when Antonin 
             Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court. His views on 
             the Court were strong, and they were clear. Some tried to 
             caricature his judicial conservatism as something it was 
             not. It was not political conservatism.
               Justice Scalia's aim was to follow the Constitution 
             wherever it took him, even if he disagreed politically 
             with the outcome. We saw that when he voted to uphold the 
             constitutional right of protesters to burn the American 
             flag. He upheld their right to do that. This is what he 
             said: ``If it was up to me, I would have thrown this 
             bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail, but it was 
             not up to me.''
               It was up to the Constitution.
               ``If you had to pick ... one freedom ... that is the 
             most essential to the functioning of a democracy, it has 
             to be freedom of speech,'' Antonin Scalia once said. He 
             went on:

               Because democracy means persuading one another. And 
             then, ultimately, voting. ... You can't run such a system 
             if there is a muzzling of one point of view. So it's a 
             fundamental freedom in a democracy, much more necessary in 
             a democracy than in any other system of government. I 
             guess you can run an effective monarchy without freedom of 
             speech. I don't think you can run an effective democracy 
             without it.

               Justice Scalia defended the First Amendment rights of 
             those who would express themselves by burning our flag 
             just as he defended the First Amendment rights of 
             Americans who wished to express themselves by 
             participating in the change-making process of our 
             democracy: the right to speak one's mind, the right to 
             associate freely, the rights of citizens, groups, and 
             candidates to participate in the political process.
               Numerous cases involving these kinds of essential First 
             Amendment principles came before the Court during his 
             tenure. I filed nearly a dozen amicus curiae briefs in 
             related Supreme Court cases in recent years, and I was the 
             lead plaintiff in a case that challenged the campaign 
             finance laws back in 2002.
               These core First Amendment freedoms may not always be 
             popular with some politicians who would rather control the 
             amount, nature, and timing of speech that is critical of 
             them, but Justice Scalia recognized that protecting the 
             citizenry from efforts by the government to control their 
             speech about issues of public concern was the very purpose 
             of the First Amendment. He knew that such speech--
             political speech--lay at its very core.
               It is a constitutional outlook shared by many, including 
             the members of an organization such as the Federalist 
             Society. You could always count on him attending the 
             Society's annual dinner. One of his five sons, Paul, is a 
             priest, and he always gave an opening prayer. This is what 
             Antonin Scalia said about that.

               If in an old-fashioned Catholic family with five sons 
             you don't get one priest out of it, we're in big trouble. 
             The other four were very happy when Paul announced that he 
             was going to take one for the team.

               That is the thing about Antonin Scalia. His opinions 
             could bite. His wit could be cutting. But his good humor 
             was always in abundant supply. One study from 2005 
             concluded decisively--or as decisively as one can--that 
             Antonin Scalia was the funniest Justice on the Court.
               He was also careful not to confuse the philosophical 
             with the personal. ``I attack ideas. I don't attack 
             people. ... And if you can't separate the two, you gotta 
             get another day job.''
               These qualities endeared him to many who thought very 
             differently than he did--most famously, his philosophical 
             opposite on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their 
             friendship began after Ginsburg heard him speak at a law 
             conference. Here is what she said: ``I disagreed with most 
             of what he said,'' she recalled, ``but I loved the way he 
             said it.''
               Justice Scalia put it this way: ``She likes opera, and 
             she's a very nice person. What's not to like?''
               ``Well,'' he continued, ``except her views on the law.''
               Ginsburg called him Nino. Justice Scalia referred to the 
             pair as the ``Odd Couple.'' They actually vacationed 
             together. They rode elephants. They parasailed. Just a few 
             months ago, their relationship was captured in the perfect 
             medium: opera, their shared love.
               ``Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic 
             Proportions'' premiered last summer. In it, a jurist named 
             Scalia is imprisoned for ``excessive dissenting,'' and it 
             is none other than Ginsburg, or an actress faintly 
             resembling her, who comes crashing through the ceiling to 
             save him. It is the kind of show that is larger than life, 
             and so was Nino Scalia.
               He leaves behind nine children and a wife who loved him 
             dearly, Maureen. Maureen would sometimes tease her husband 
             that she had her pick of suitors and could just as well 
             have married any of them. But she didn't, he would remind 
             her, because they were wishy-washy, and she would have 
             been bored.
               ``Whatever my faults are,'' Antonin Scalia once said, 
             ``I am not wishy-washy.''
               Far from wishy-washy and anything but boring, Justice 
             Scalia was an articulate champion of the Constitution. He 
             was a personality unto himself, and his passing is a 
             significant loss for the Court and for our country. We 
             remember him today. We express our sympathies to the large 
             and loving family he leaves behind. We know our country 
             will not soon forget him.

               Mr. REID. Madam President, we were all shocked by the 
             sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 
             Justice Scalia and I had our differences. However, there 
             was no doubting his intelligence or dedication to the 
             country. I offer my condolences to the entire Scalia 
             family, who laid to rest a devoted husband, father, and 
             grandfather this weekend.
               I watched the funeral from Nevada, and I was deeply 
             impressed with Justice Scalia's son, Rev. Paul Scalia, and 
             the moving eulogy he gave his father. It was quite 
             remarkable. ...

               Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to pay 
             tribute to Associate Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court. 
             His recent death is a tremendous loss to the Court and the 
             Nation.
               He was a defender of the Constitution. Since his death, 
             a wide range of commentators--even many who disagreed with 
             him on judicial philosophy--have hailed him as one of the 
             greatest Supreme Court Justices in our history. Justice 
             Scalia was a tireless defender of constitutional freedom. 
             In so many cases when the Court was divided, he sided with 
             litigants who raised claims under the Bill of Rights. This 
             was a manifestation of his view that the Constitution 
             should be interpreted according to the text and as it was 
             originally understood.
               The Framers believed that the Constitution was adopted 
             to protect individual liberty, and, of course, so did 
             Justice Scalia. He was a strong believer in free speech 
             and freedom of religion. He upheld many claims of 
             constitutional rights by criminal defendants, including 
             search and seizure, jury trials, and the right of the 
             accused to confront the witnesses against them.
               Justice Scalia's memorable opinions also recognize the 
             importance the Framers placed on the Constitution's checks 
             and balances to safeguard individual liberty. Their 
             preferred protection of freedom was not through litigation 
             and the Court's imperfect after-the-fact redress for 
             liberty deprived.
               Justice Scalia zealously protected the prerogatives of 
             each branch of government and the division of powers 
             between Federal and State authorities so that none would 
             be so strong as to pose a danger to freedom.
               We are all saddened by the recent death of Supreme Court 
             Justice Antonin Scalia. I extend my sympathies to his 
             family. His death is a great loss to the Nation.
               This is true for so many reasons. Justice Scalia changed 
             legal discourse in this country. He focused legal argument 
             on text and original understanding, rather than a judge's 
             own views of changing times. He was a clear thinker. His 
             judicial opinions and other writings were insightful, 
             witty, and unmistakably his own.
               Even those who disagreed with him have acknowledged he 
             was one of the greatest Justices ever to serve on the 
             Supreme Court.
               Today I would like to address a common misconception 
             about Justice Scalia, one that couldn't be further from 
             the truth. Some press stories have made the astounding 
             claim that Justice Scalia interpreted individual liberties 
             narrowly. This is absolutely untrue.
               It's important to show how many times Justice Scalia was 
             part of a 5 to 4 majority that upheld or even expanded 
             individual rights.
               If someone other than Justice Scalia had served on the 
             Court, individual liberty would have paid the price.
               The first time Justice Scalia played such a pivotal role 
             for liberty was in a takings clause case under the Fifth 
             Amendment. He ruled that when a State imposes a condition 
             on a land use permit, the government must show a close 
             connection between the impact of the construction and the 
             permit condition.
               Even though I disagreed, he ruled that the First 
             Amendment's free speech clause prohibits the States or the 
             Federal Government from criminalizing burning of the flag.
               Congress cannot, he concluded, claim power under the 
             commerce clause to criminalize an individual's ownership 
             of a firearm in a gun-free school zone.
               Justice Scalia was part of a five-member majority that 
             held that under the free speech clause, a public 
             university cannot refuse to allocate a share of student 
             activity funds to religious publications when it provides 
             funds to secular publications.
               He found the 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from 
             commandeering State and local officials to enforce Federal 
             laws.
               The Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling including Justice Scalia, 
             concluded that it didn't violate the First Amendment's 
             establishment of religion clause for public school 
             teachers to teach secular subjects in parochial schools, 
             as long as there is no excessive entanglement between the 
             State and the religious institution.
               Justice Scalia believed that the Sixth Amendment right 
             to a jury trial requires certain sentencing factors be 
             charged in the indictment and submitted to a jury for it 
             to decide, rather than a judge.
               He concluded with four other Justices that the First 
             Amendment's freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts 
             to exclude from its membership individuals who'd affect 
             the ability of the group to advocate public or private 
             views.
               Showing that original intent can't be lampooned for 
             failing to take technological changes into account, 
             Justice Scalia wrote the Court's majority opinion holding 
             that under the Fourth Amendment, police can't use thermal 
             imaging technology or other technology not otherwise 
             available to the general public for surveillance of a 
             person's house, even without physical entry, without a 
             warrant.
               He decided that notwithstanding the establishment 
             clause, a broad class of low-income parents may receive 
             public school vouchers to defray the costs of their 
             children's attendance at private schools of their choice, 
             including religious schools.
               He voted to strike down as a violation of the Sixth 
             Amendment's right to a jury trial Federal and State 
             sentencing guidelines that permit judges rather than 
             juries to determine the facts permitting a sentence to be 
             lengthened beyond what is otherwise permissible.
               Justice Scalia found placing the Ten Commandments on the 
             Texas State House grounds doesn't violate the First 
             Amendment's establishment clause when the monument was 
             considered in context, and conveyed a historical and 
             social message rather than a religious one.
               He was part of a 5 to 4 Court that concluded the denial 
             of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to his 
             counsel of choice, not only denial of counsel generally, 
             automatically requires reversal of his conviction.
               He wrote for a 5 to 4 majority that the Second Amendment 
             protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for 
             traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within 
             the home, in Federal enclaves such as Washington, DC. A 
             later 5 to 4 decision applies this individual Second 
             Amendment right against State interference as well.
               According to Justice Scalia and four other Justices, a 
             warrantless search of an automobile of a person who has 
             been put under arrest is permissible under the Fourth 
             Amendment only if there is a continuing threat to officer 
             safety, or there is a need to preserve evidence.
               Justice Scalia also voted that it is a violation of the 
             Sixth Amendment right of the accused to confront the 
             witnesses against him for the prosecution to use a drug 
             test report without the live testimony of the particular 
             person who performed the test.
               He was part of a 5 to 4 majority that found that the 
             First Amendment requires that corporations, including 
             nonprofit corporations such as the Sierra Club and the 
             National Rifle Association, are free to make unlimited 
             independent campaign expenditures.
               Under the free exercise of religion clause, according to 
             Justice Scalia and four other Justices, a closely held 
             corporation is exempt from a law that its owners 
             religiously object to, such as Obamacare's contraception 
             mandate, if there is a less restrictive way to advance the 
             law's interests.
               Think about the liberty lost, had Justice Scalia not 
             served our Nation.
               A different Justice might have ruled against individual 
             liberty in each of these cases. It is a frightening 
             prospect. But in each instance, that is what four of 
             Justice Scalia's colleagues would have done.
               Of course, these are only the 5 to 4 opinions. There 
             were many others where Justice Scalia ruled in favor of 
             constitutional liberty, and more than four other Justices 
             joined him.
               Then there were other decisions where Justice Scalia 
             voted to accept the claim of individual liberty, but a 
             majority of the Court didn't. Some of those cases 
             unquestionably should've come out the other way.
               When considering Justice Scalia's contribution to 
             individual liberty, it's vital to consider his great 
             insight that the Bill of Rights is not the most important 
             part of the Constitution in protecting freedom.
               For him, as for the Framers of the Constitution, it is 
             the structural provisions of the Constitution, the checks 
             and balances and the separation of powers that are most 
             protective of liberty.
               These were made part of the Constitution not as ends 
             unto themselves, or as the basis to bring lawsuits after 
             rights were threatened, but as ways to prevent government 
             from encroaching on individual freedom in the first place.
               For instance, Justice Scalia protected the vertical 
             separation of powers that is federalism. Federalism keeps 
             decisions closer to the people but also ensures we have a 
             unified nation. It prevents a federal government from 
             overstepping its bounds in ways that threaten freedom.
               He also maintained the horizontal separation of powers 
             through strong support of the checks and balances in the 
             Constitution. He defended the power of Congress against 
             Executive encroachment, such as in the recess appointments 
             case.
               Justice Scalia protected the judiciary against 
             legislative infringement of its powers. He defended the 
             Executive against legislative usurpation as well.
               The best example, and the one that most directly shows 
             the connection between the separation of powers and 
             individual freedom, was his solo dissent to the Court's 
             upholding of the Independent Counsel Act.
               Contrary to the overwhelming views of the public, the 
             media, and politicians at the time, Justice Scalia 
             correctly viewed that statute not as a wolf in sheep's 
             clothing, but as an actual wolf.
               Dismissively rejected in 1988 by nearly all observers, 
             his dissent understood that the creation of a prosecutor 
             for the sole purpose of investigating individuals rather 
             than crimes not only was a threat to the Executive's power 
             to prosecute, but was destined to produce unfair 
             prosecutions.
               It's now viewed as one of the most insightful, well-
             reasoned, farsighted, and greatest dissents in the Court's 
             history. But his powerful and true arguments didn't 
             convince a single colleague to join him.
               As important as his 5 to 4 rulings were, in so many 
             ways, the difference between having Justice Scalia on the 
             Court and not having him there, was what that meant for 
             rigorous analysis of the law.
               Justice Scalia's role as a textualist and an originalist 
             was vital to his voting so frequently in favor of 
             constitutional liberties. He reached conclusions supported 
             by law whether they were popular or not, and often whether 
             he agreed with them or not.
               He opposed flag burning. He didn't want to prevent the 
             police from arresting dangerous criminals or make trials 
             even more complicated and cumbersome.
               He acted in the highest traditions of the Constitution 
             and our judiciary.
               We all owe him a debt of gratitude. We all should give 
             serious thought to the kind of judging that, like his, is 
             necessary to preserve our freedoms and our constitutional 
             order.

               Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I recently joined my good 
             friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
             in writing an opinion piece. We expressed our joint view 
             that the death of Justice Scalia represented a significant 
             loss for our country ...
                                             Tuesday, February 23, 2016
               Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past weekend the Nation 
             honored Justice Antonin Scalia, who was laid to rest after 
             serving on the Supreme Court for nearly three decades. 
             Marcelle and I were home in Vermont when we learned that 
             Justice Scalia had passed. Frankly, we were stunned by the 
             news. I did not often agree with Justice Scalia, but he 
             was a brilliant jurist with a deep commitment to our 
             country and to the Constitution, and we enjoyed his 
             friendship for decades. He will be remembered as one of 
             the most influential Justices in modern history. ...

               Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on February 13 the Nation was 
             shaken by the news that Supreme Court Justice Antonin 
             Scalia had passed away. Justice Scalia served on the 
             Nation's highest Court for 29 years, and he was a major 
             figure on the American legal landscape. Justice Scalia was 
             described by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit 
             as ``the most influential justice of the last quarter 
             century.''
               Over the years I came to know Justice Scalia. He was a 
             man of great intellect, good humor, and he was a very 
             social person. We certainly disagreed on many fundamental 
             issues, but even those who disagreed with Justice Scalia 
             on legal matters still admired him as a person.
               Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--no ideological ally of 
             Justice Scalia--wrote after his death, ``we were best 
             buddies.'' She described him as ``a jurist of captivating 
             brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the 
             most sober judge laugh.'' Justice Ginsberg said she and 
             Justice Scalia were ``different in our interpretation of 
             written texts,'' but they were ``one in our reverence for 
             the Constitution and the institution we serve.'' I have 
             great respect for the decades Justice Scalia spent in 
             public service. My thoughts and prayers clearly go with 
             his family. ...

               Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of 
             one of our Nation's greatest champions of limited 
             government under the Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia. 
             Justice Scalia set the standard for the kind of judge upon 
             which liberty depends. He was a dear friend, and I will 
             miss him greatly.
               The purpose of government, according to the Declaration 
             of Independence and the Constitution, is to secure 
             inalienable rights and the blessings of liberty. Liberty 
             exists by design and, as Andrew Jackson put it, by eternal 
             vigilance. America's Founders were clear that liberty 
             requires separated and limited government powers, 
             including a particular role for unelected judges. Judges 
             who seek to determine what the law is promote liberty; 
             judges who say what they think the law should be undermine 
             it.
               Put simply, judges must interpret and apply the law 
             impartially; that is, by setting aside their own opinions, 
             preferences, or prejudices. Interpreting and applying the 
             law impartially particularly leaves the American people 
             and their elected representatives in charge of the law. 
             When they interpret written law impartially, they discern 
             what the original public meaning of the law is. When 
             judges apply the law impartially, they pay no regard to 
             the identity of the parties or the political effects of 
             their decision. Judges can neither make nor change the law 
             they use to decide cases. That is the kind of judge 
             liberty requires. That is the kind of judge Antonin Scalia 
             was.
               When President Ronald Reagan first appointed Antonin 
             Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 
             1982, the future Justice said to those of us on the 
             Judiciary Committee that if confirmed the time for him to 
             opine on the wisdom of laws would be ``bygone days.'' When 
             he again came before the committee a few years later as a 
             Supreme Court nominee, he repeated that setting aside 
             personal views is ``one of the primary qualifications for 
             a judge.'' He described a ``good judge'' as one who starts 
             from the law itself and not ``where I would like to come 
             out in [a] particular case.''
               Justice Scalia's brilliance and wit were certainly 
             impressive, but they were powerfully connected to this 
             deeply considered and deliberately framed judicial 
             philosophy rooted in the principles of the Constitution. 
             He stuck doggedly to this ideal of the good judge whose 
             role in our system of government is limited to properly 
             interpreting the law and impartially applying it to decide 
             cases. His approach requires self-restraint by judges. 
             Judges, he often said, must take the law as they find it 
             and apply it even when they do not like the results. In 
             his own words, ``If you're going to be a good and faithful 
             judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're 
             not always going to like the conclusions you reach.''
               Liberty requires such judicial self-restraint, whether 
             it is en vogue or not. As President Reagan put it when he 
             witnessed the oath of office administered to Justice 
             Scalia in September 1986, America's Founders intended that 
             the judiciary be independent and strong but also confined 
             within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws.
               No one believed that principle more deeply and insisted 
             on implementing it more consistently than our Justice 
             Scalia. His approach to the law was often called 
             textualism or, in the constitutional context, 
             originalism--an approach which is nothing more than 
             determining the original public meaning of the legal text. 
             It leaves the lawmaking to the lawmakers and the people 
             they represent, rather than to the judge.
               The Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Scalia's 
             nomination on September 17, 1986, the 199th anniversary of 
             the Constitution's ratification. That was very appropriate 
             because his approach gives the Constitution its real due, 
             treating it as more than empty words on a page but as 
             words that already have meaning and substance. Justice 
             Scalia knew that the Constitution cannot limit 
             government's power if government actors--including 
             judges--define the Constitution.
               Justice Scalia rejected judicial activism--what he 
             called power-judging--that treats the law as shape-
             shifting. For activists, the laws and the Constitution 
             have no fixed meaning but can rather be contorted and 
             manipulated to fit the judge's own policy preference. Such 
             an approach puts the unelected judge, not the American 
             people in their elected representatives, in the position 
             of supreme lawmaker.
               Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges controlled the 
             Constitution's meaning, it would be ``a mere thing of wax 
             in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and 
             shape into any form they please.'' That is exactly what 
             activist judges do, treating the law like clay that they 
             can mold in their own image.
               Rather than reinterpreting the law in his own image, the 
             good judge conforms his decisions to the fixed meaning of 
             the law. By insisting that even judges must be the 
             servants rather than the masters of the law, Justice 
             Scalia was simply following the lead of America's Founders 
             and empowering the American people.
               Justice Scalia's approach to judging not only requires 
             self-restraint by judges, but it also demands rigor and 
             accountability by legislators. The good judge takes 
             seriously the language the legislators enact, so the 
             people can hold accountable the legislators they elect.
               The famed Senator and Supreme Court advocate Daniel 
             Webster once said that ``there are men in all ages who 
             mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise 
             to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.'' Those 
             who object to Justice Scalia's approach embrace the notion 
             that judges, rather than the people, should be the masters 
             of the law.
               Justice Scalia's impact has been enormous. A liberal 
             legal commentator may have put it best in his review of 
             Justice Scalia's book, ``A Matter of Interpretation,'' 
             with these words:

               We are all originalists now. That is to say, most judges 
             and legal scholars who want to remain within the 
             boundaries of respectable constitutional discourse agree 
             that the original meaning of the Constitution and its 
             amendment has some degree of pertinence to the question of 
             what the Constitution means today.

               Justice Scalia brought the boundaries of respectable 
             constitutional discourse more in line with the principles 
             of liberty than they had been in a generation. For that, 
             our liberty is more secure, and we should be deeply 
             grateful.

               Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this past Saturday I was 
             honored to attend the funeral mass for Justice Scalia. I 
             couldn't help but recall back when President Reagan 
             nominated him for the Supreme Court of the United States. 
             At that time Judge Scalia said that ``[his] only [agenda] 
             was to be a good judge.''
               Today, 30 years later, it is clear that Justice Scalia, 
             who until his death served longer than any of the current 
             members of the Supreme Court of the United States, was 
             more than a good judge. In fact, he was a great judge. He 
             was a giant of American jurisprudence.
               As I got to know him even better during the course of 
             more recent years, thanks to a mutual acquaintance, I can 
             tell you he was also a good man. My first encounter with 
             Justice Scalia was back in 1991 when I won an election to 
             be on the Texas Supreme Court and the court invited 
             Justice Scalia to come to Austin, TX, and administer the 
             oath of office. At that time I already admired his 
             intellect and commitment to the Constitution and the rule 
             of law, and believe me, he was an inspiration to young 
             judges like me who were inspired to do the same. He has 
             been an inspiration to so many judges, lawyers, and law 
             students for decades.
               I admired and respected Justice Scalia. Like many 
             Texans, I was proud of the fact that he also seemed to 
             love Texas, believe it or not, even though he was a 
             Virginian. He remarked once that if he didn't live in 
             Virginia, he would ``probably want to be a Texan.''
               I wish to spend a couple of minutes remembering this 
             great man and the contributions he made to our Nation. 
             Beyond his incredible resume, Justice Scalia was a devoted 
             husband to Maureen for more than 50 years. He was a 
             dedicated father to 9 children and a grandfather to more 
             than 30 grandchildren. As I said earlier, he was not only 
             a family man, which I am sure he would have considered his 
             most important job, he was a role model for a generation 
             of lawyers, judges, legal scholars, and those who loved 
             the Constitution.
               One of the interesting things about Justice Scalia--and 
             perhaps he could teach all of us a little something these 
             days--was that he was quick to build relationships with 
             people who had different views from his own and fostered 
             an environment of collegiality and friendship on the 
             Court.
               As we learned earlier, Justice Scalia had relationships 
             with people with whom he couldn't have disagreed more on 
             key issues that the Court confronted--people like Justice 
             Ginsburg, for example. We all know he was a gifted writer 
             and possessed an infectious wit, but Justice Scalia's most 
             important legacy is his life's work and his call for a 
             return to our constitutional first principles.
               Justice Scalia strongly believed that words mattered, 
             and I think that is one of the reasons why he quickly 
             became one of the most memorable writers on the Court and 
             one of the best in the Court's entire history. He believed 
             the words written in the Constitution mattered because 
             that was the only thing the States voted on when they 
             ratified the Constitution. Those were the words with which 
             the American people chose to govern themselves. For 
             decades he tried to give those words force and fought 
             against an attempt to say that we really don't have a 
             written Constitution; we have a living Constitution that 
             should be reinterpreted based on the times when, indeed, 
             the text had not changed one bit.
               His originalist interpretation of the Constitution meant 
             that he viewed the Court as a place to vindicate the law 
             and what it meant, not express the preferences of five 
             Justices. Justice Scalia was one of the most fervent 
             advocates for the rule of law and a written Constitution. 
             On many instances, he made the important point that if the 
             Supreme Court was viewed merely as a group of nine 
             individuals making value judgments on how our country 
             ought to be governed under our Constitution, then the 
             people may well feel that their values were equally as 
             valid as those of the ``high nine'' on the Potomac given 
             life tenure and a seat on the Supreme Court. It was his 
             strict adherence to the text of the Constitution, and not 
             evolving value judgments over time, that gave protection 
             to our democracy.
               Justice Scalia was strongly committed to the separation 
             of powers. This is so fundamental to the Constitution 
             that, until the first Congress, James Madison didn't even 
             think that we needed a Bill of Rights because he felt that 
             the separation of powers and the division of 
             responsibilities would be protection enough because they 
             viewed the concentration of powers, the opposite of 
             separation of powers, as a threat to our very liberty. I 
             think he said that the very definition of tyranny was the 
             concentration of powers. So he saw the separation of 
             powers as nothing less than the most important guarantor 
             of our liberty and the most important shield against 
             tyranny.
               In one dissent Justice Scalia wrote ``without a secure 
             structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be 
             worthless.'' I guess you would have to say he is a 
             Madisonian and not a Federalist by temperament and view. 
             This recognition of the importance of separation of powers 
             could not be any more important at this point in our 
             history because scarcely a month goes by when this 
             administration has chosen to undermine this basic 
             constitutional precept by exerting itself and claiming 
             authorities which the Constitution does not give the 
             President.
               Justice Scalia understood what was at stake. He believed 
             that every blow to the separation of powers would harm our 
             republic and liberty itself.
               As Justice Scalia wrote in a case in which the Court 
             unanimously struck down the President's violations of the 
             constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, he said: 
             ``We should therefore take every opportunity to affirm the 
             primacy of the Constitution's enduring principles over the 
             politics of the moment.'' He continued, warning against 
             ``aggrandizing the Presidency beyond its constitutional 
             bounds.'' That is what Justice Scalia did time and again, 
             and that is what he reminded all of us about--the 
             importance of doctrines of separation of powers, adherence 
             to the text of the Constitution, and not making it up as 
             you are going along or expressing value judgments that 
             can't be related to the actual text and original 
             understanding of the Constitution. ...

               Ms. KLOBUCHAR. ... I wish to begin by saying that my 
             prayers and thoughts are with the family and friends and 
             Supreme Court colleagues of Justice Scalia. He was a great 
             scholar who had friends in many places. Just last week I 
             was at the University of Chicago Law School, where I went 
             to law school, and so many people have stories. He used to 
             teach there. He taught there for a long period of time, 
             and they miss him very much. ...

               Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to 
             honor the life and service of Supreme Court Justice 
             Antonin Scalia.
               Justice Scalia was a dedicated public servant who gave 
             so many years to our courts and our country. He and I 
             didn't agree on every issue, but his intellect, passion, 
             and commitment were unquestionable. I know he will be 
             missed, and the thoughts and prayers of Washington State 
             families go out to his family. ...

               Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to offer a few words 
             remembering Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the 
             Supreme Court. America has lost a legal giant and tireless 
             defender of the Constitution. Justice Scalia dedicated his 
             life to his country and the rule of law. His passing is a 
             significant loss for the Court and the United States.
               Few Associate Justices of the Supreme Court capture the 
             attention of both lawyers and non-lawyers like Justice 
             Scalia has throughout his career. Antonin Scalia used wit, 
             humor, and colorful writing to captivate Americans in his 
             judicial opinions and educational talks. Justice Scalia 
             also felt strongly about protecting the rights of the 
             individual and did so in monumental opinions interpreting 
             the First, Second, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments. In the 
             immediate days following his passing, I received 
             substantial correspondence from Wyoming residents praising 
             his work for upholding the Constitution and defending 
             individual liberties.
               A number of my colleagues have already mentioned how 
             Justice Scalia would always put the Constitution first, 
             even if it conflicted with his personal views. This was 
             the case when Justice Scalia voted to uphold the right of 
             protesters to burn the American flag--even though he 
             strongly disagreed with flag desecration.
               When it comes to privacy, Justice Scalia established 
             himself as a leading champion of the Fourth Amendment, 
             particularly when it comes to privacy in one's home or 
             car.
               Justice Scalia also authored a landmark majority opinion 
             upholding gun rights under the Second Amendment which 
             reiterated the constitutional right of an individual to 
             keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia, a right 
             which was later incorporated to all States.
               Justice Scalia also fought ardently for religious 
             freedoms under the establishment clause and joined others 
             in upholding freedom of association under the First 
             Amendment.
               From his earliest days on the Supreme Court, Justice 
             Scalia approached the Constitution and statutes passed by 
             Congress as a textualist. He protected the vertical 
             separation of power in our federalist system which keeps 
             decisions closer to the people and fought for the 
             separation of powers among the three branches of Federal 
             Government.
               Most recently, Justice Scalia challenged Executive 
             overreach in the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court 
             invalidating President Obama's unconstitutional recess 
             appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the 
             Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
               Finally, Justice Scalia's writings, judicial philosophy, 
             and lectures have influenced future generations of lawyers 
             and jurists. Whether, during oral argument, asking if the 
             government can ``make people buy broccoli'' or referencing 
             Cole Porter lyrics in opinions, Justice Scalia used words 
             to rebut, challenge, and persuade.
               Justice Scalia's legacy and legal precedents will stand 
             the test of time, and our Nation owes him a debt of 
             gratitude for his service. My wife Diana and I send our 
             prayers and condolences to the Scalia family.
                                           Wednesday, February 24, 2016
               Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday it was my privilege 
             to say a few words honoring Justice Antonin Scalia, known 
             to his friends as ``Nino,'' a man whose intellect, wit, 
             and dedication to our Constitution have served our country 
             for decades. I am pleased that others have said 
             appropriate words honoring his memory and the many ways he 
             helped strengthen our constitutional self-government and 
             our democracy. ...

               Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk about Justice 
             Scalia for a few minutes. ...
               There is no question that the Supreme Court has lost a 
             strong and thoughtful voice. No matter what issues the 
             Justices on the Court might have disagreed with, or even 
             when there was a disagreement on how to interpret the 
             Constitution, there is no question that Judge Scalia had a 
             unique capacity to get beyond that. He will be missed by 
             the Court for both his intellect and his friendship. He 
             was an Associate Justice on the Court for almost 30 years. 
             He was a true constitutional scholar, both in his work 
             before the Court and on the Court, and he brought a 
             lifetime of understanding of the law to the Court.
               He began his legal career in 1961, practicing in private 
             practice. In 1967 he became part of the faculty of the 
             University of Virginia School of Law. In 1972 he joined 
             the Nixon administration as General Counsel for the Office 
             of Telecommunications Policy, and from there he was 
             appointed Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
             Legal Counsel. He brought a great deal of knowledge to his 
             work and finished the first part of his career as a law 
             professor at the University of Chicago, and that is the 
             point where he became a judge.
               In 1982 President Reagan appointed him to the U.S. Court 
             of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a court that gets 
             many of the cases that wind up on the Supreme Court. He 
             was on that court for a little more than 4 years.
               In 1986 President Reagan nominated him to serve as an 
             Associate Justice. He was an unwavering defender of the 
             Constitution, and as a member of the Supreme Court, he had 
             the ability to debate as perhaps no one had in a long 
             time--and perhaps no one will for a long time. He had a 
             sense of what the Constitution was all about and a sense 
             of what the Constitution meant, and by that he meant what 
             the Constitution meant to the people who wrote it.
               There is a way to change the Constitution. If the 
             country and the Congress think that the Constitution is 
             outmoded in the way that it would have been looked at by 
             the people who wrote it, there is a process to do 
             something about that. That process was immediately used 
             when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and 
             can still be used if people feel the Constitution no 
             longer has the same meaning as what the people who wrote 
             it and voted on it thought it meant. Justice Scalia had 
             the ability to bring that up in every argument and would 
             sometimes argue against his own personal views. He argued 
             for what the Constitution meant and what it was intended 
             to mean. His opinions were well reasoned, logical, 
             eloquent, and often laced with both humor and maybe a 
             little sarcasm, but they were grounded with the idea that 
             judges should interpret the Constitution the way it was 
             written.
               His contributions to the study of law left a profound 
             mark on the legal profession. Lawyers, particularly young 
             lawyers in many cases, talk about the law differently than 
             they did before Justice Scalia began to argue his view of 
             what the Constitution meant and what the Court meant. He 
             had a great legal mind.
               He was fun to be with. I will personally miss the 
             opportunity to talk to him about the books we were reading 
             or books the other one should read or maybe books that the 
             other one should avoid reading because of the time 
             required to read it. He had a broad sense of wanting to 
             challenge his own views and was able to challenge other 
             people's views not only in a positive way but in a way 
             that he thought advanced the Constitution and what the 
             Constitution meant to the country.
               As I stand here today, I am sure many people all over 
             America and the people who the Scalias came into contact 
             with are continuing to remember his family. Our thoughts 
             and prayers are with his wife Maureen, their nine 
             children, and their literally dozens of grandchildren. I 
             am not sure if the number is 36 or 39, but it is an 
             impressive number.
               Those who had a chance to see, be there, or read his 
             son's eloquent handling of the funeral service and the 
             eulogy can clearly see the great legacy he and Maureen 
             Scalia left to the country.
               I am not a lawyer, which is often the most popular thing 
             I say, so I don't want to pretend to be a lawyer here 
             talking about the law and the Constitution, but you don't 
             really need to be a brilliant lawyer to understand the 
             Constitution or understand what Justice Scalia was going 
             to be. ...
               Justice Scalia was appointed by Ronald Reagan and served 
             for three decades. He served for a quarter of a century 
             after Ronald Reagan left the White House and for a decade 
             after President Reagan died. ...

               Mr. FRANKEN. ... Make no mistake, the passing of Justice 
             Antonin Scalia came as a great shock. Although Justice 
             Scalia and I did not share a common view of the 
             Constitution or of the country, I recognized that he was a 
             man of great conviction and, it should be said, a man of 
             great humor. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, 
             his friends, his clerks, and his colleagues. ...

               Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Supreme Court Justice Antonin 
             Scalia was an extraordinary man whose contributions to 
             this country and the American people, whom he faithfully 
             served from the bench, are so prodigious that it will take 
             generations for us to fully comprehend our debt of great 
             gratitude to him. His untimely, recent death is a tragedy, 
             and his legacy is a blessing to friends of freedom 
             throughout this country and everywhere.
               Justice Scalia was a learned student of history and a 
             man who relished, perhaps more than any other, a spirited, 
             lively debate. ...

               Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Nation in offering 
             my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of 
             Justice Scalia, who was an Associate Justice of the U.S. 
             Supreme Court. For more than three decades, Justice Scalia 
             devoted himself to the rule of law and public service at 
             the highest levels. Whether you agreed or disagreed with 
             his decisions, there is no debate about Justice Scalia's 
             profound impact on the Supreme Court. He served his 
             country with great honor. ...

               Mr. BLUMENTHAL. ... I come here not only as a U.S. 
             Senator but also as a former Federal prosecutor, a U.S. 
             attorney in Connecticut from 1977 to 1981, a former State 
             attorney general for 20 years, and a veteran of four 
             arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. I am also here as 
             a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, and I share 
             with the Presiding Officer the experience of having had 
             that supremely important and formative experience, and, of 
             course, it shapes my view as well of the Court.
               I have immense respect and awe for the position and 
             power and eminence of the U.S. Supreme Court, its role in 
             our democracy, and its history of scholarship and public 
             service. I have the same admiration for Justice Antonin 
             Scalia, and I take this moment to remember his uniquely 
             American life.
               As the son of an immigrant, he was a dedicated public 
             servant, a gifted writer, and a powerful speaker. I heard 
             him speak on a number of occasions and argued before him 
             in the Court in a number of memorable exchanges. His sense 
             of humor and his quickness of wit and insight remain with 
             me now. As all of my colleagues will attest, he dedicated 
             his life to serving the public, which can be demanding and 
             difficult at times, but his life showed, as we know, that 
             the difficulties and the demands are well worth the 
             rewards. My thoughts are with his wife Maureen and his 
             entire family. ...
              SENATE RESOLUTION 374--RELATING TO THE DEATH OF ANTONIN 
               SCALIA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
                                    UNITED STATES
               Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
             Leahy, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. 
             Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 
             Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burr, Ms. 
             Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, 
             Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
             Coons, Mr. Corker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
             Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. 
             Ernst, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
             Franken, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
             Hatch, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Heller, Ms. Hirono, 
             Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
             Kaine, Mr. King, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, 
             Mr. Lee, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. McCain, Mrs. 
             McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
             Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson, 
             Mr. Paul, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Peters, Mr. Portman, Mr. Reed, 
             Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
             Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Scott, 
             Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
             Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey, 
             Mr. Udall, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
             Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the 
             following resolution; which was ordered held at the desk:
                                     S. Res. 374
               Whereas Antonin Scalia, the late Associate Justice of 
             the Supreme Court of the United States, was born in 
             Trenton, New Jersey, to Salvatore Eugene Scalia and 
             Catherine Panaro Scalia and raised in Queens, New York;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia enrolled in Georgetown 
             University, where he graduated valedictorian and summa cum 
             laude and earned a bachelor's degree in history;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia graduated magna cum laude from 
             Harvard Law School, where he was a notes editor for the 
             Harvard Law Review;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia married Maureen McCarthy, with 
             whom he raised 9 children, Ann, Eugene, John, Catherine, 
             Mary Claire, Paul, Matthew, Christopher, and Margaret;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia was an accomplished attorney in 
             Cleveland, Ohio, and a law professor at the University of 
             Virginia and the University of Chicago;
               Whereas President Richard Nixon selected Antonin Scalia 
             to be General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications 
             Policy;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia served as chairman of the 
             Administrative Conference of the United States;
               Whereas President Richard Nixon selected Antonin Scalia 
             to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal 
             Counsel of the Department of Justice, and President Gerald 
             Ford resubmitted the nomination of Antonin Scalia to serve 
             in that position;
               Whereas President Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia 
             to be a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for 
             the District of Columbia Circuit;
               Whereas President Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia 
             to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of 
             the United States;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia had a profound love for hunting 
             and the arts, in particular opera;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia was a man of enormous intellect, 
             incisive analytical skill, and tremendous wit, a 
             combination reflected in the clarity of his judicial 
             opinions;
               Whereas the record of Antonin Scalia illustrates a 
             belief in judicial restraint, judicial independence, and 
             the rule of law;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia moved public discussion toward a 
             greater appreciation of the text and original meaning of 
             the Constitution as a basis for interpreting the terms of 
             the Constitution;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia enforced the separation of powers 
             contained in the Constitution as a bulwark for individual 
             freedom;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia raised the level of the quality 
             of oral argument and judicial decisionmaking;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia was highly regarded by each of 
             his colleagues, including colleagues with a judicial 
             philosophy that differed from his own;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia served with distinction on the 
             Supreme Court for more than 29 years;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia was 1 of the most influential and 
             memorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United 
             States;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia was the embodiment of each of the 
             ideal qualities of a judge: fairness, openmindedness, and 
             above all commitment to intellectual rigor in application 
             of the Constitution and the rule of law;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia will be remembered as 1 of the 
             great Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States;
               Whereas Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016; 
             and
               Whereas the nation is deeply indebted to Antonin Scalia, 
             a truly distinguished individual of the United States: 
             Now, therefore, be it
               Resolved, That the Senate--
               (1) extends heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends 
             of Antonin Scalia;
               (2) acknowledges the lifetime of service of Antonin 
             Scalia to the United States as a talented attorney, a 
             learned law professor, a dedicated public servant, a 
             brilliant jurist, and 1 of the great Justices of the 
             Supreme Court of the United States; and
               (3) commends Antonin Scalia for the 29-year tenure on 
             the Supreme Court of the United States.
                                            Thursday, February 25, 2016
               The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.

               Mr. DURBIN. ... I sure disagreed with Justice Scalia on 
             a lot of things, but I do not argue with Judge Posner of 
             the Seventh Circuit in my State when he said that Justice 
             Scalia was a major force in terms of thinking on the 
             Supreme Court. And what really undergirded the philosophy 
             of Justice Scalia was what he called originalism. Some 
             people mocked it, and some people just flat out disagreed 
             with it. But he said time and again: Read the Constitution 
             and read the precise wording of the Constitution. I saw 
             different things in those words than he did, but that was 
             his North Star when it came to Supreme Court decisions. 
             ...

               The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from 
             Utah.

               Mr. HATCH. ... On Tuesday, I rose to honor the memory of 
             the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I knew quite well. 
             With his passing, the Nation lost one of its greatest 
             Supreme Court Justices ever to have served, and I lost a 
             dear friend. ...

               Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my deepest 
             sympathies to the Scalia family.
               Justice Scalia was first and foremost a family man, 
             beloved by his wife, 9 children, and 36 grandchildren.
               Since 1986 he had served on the highest court in our 
             land. He inspired deep loyalty among his many friends and 
             his current and former clerks, who remember him for his 
             sharp wit and intellect.
               He was clearly a man who rose above ideological 
             differences with his colleagues to forge deep friendships 
             on the Court. That is a credit to him.
               While I may have disagreed with him on matters of law 
             and policy, we are united as Americans in sharing our 
             condolences.
                                               Wednesday, March 2, 2016
               Mr. McCONNELL. ... Justice Scalia himself reminded us 
             that setting aside one's personal views is ``one of the 
             primary qualifications for a judge.'' His aim was to 
             follow the Constitution wherever it took him, even if he 
             disagreed politically with the outcome. We saw that when 
             he sided with the constitutional right of protestors to 
             burn the American flag. ``If you're going to be a good and 
             faithful judge,'' he said, ``you have to resign yourself 
             to the fact that you're not always going to like the 
             conclusions you reach.''

               Mr. WARNER. ... I wish to say a few words about Supreme 
             Court Justice Antonin Scalia and to offer my condolences 
             to his family. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Judge 
             Scalia's decisions--and mechanically I disagreed with many 
             of them--he was a remarkable jurist and he was a 
             remarkable individual. Over the last 10-plus years, I got 
             to know him and his wife Maureen more in a social setting. 
             He was warm, witty, charming, brilliant, and he will be 
             missed by all who agreed or disagreed with him. My 
             thoughts continue to be with Maureen and his family. ...

               Mr. ISAKSON. ... Think about this. Ronald Reagan 
             appointed Antonin Scalia in 1986. Antonin Scalia served on 
             the Court for almost 30 years until 2016. ...
               I commend Antonin Scalia for being a great servant to 
             the American people. He was a great jurist, a great 
             writer, and a great judge. He will be missed. ...

               Mr. BENNET. ... I think it is important to reflect on 
             Justice Scalia's life and profound contribution and 
             influence on the Court and our country. He was one of the 
             longest serving Justices in our Nation's history, and, as 
             far as I can tell, every single day he served, he applied 
             his considerable intellect, integrity, and wit to the work 
             before him.
               Although I disagreed with many of his decisions, I never 
             doubted his commitment to the rule of law. He was a 
             principled originalist. He was loyal to his country. By 
             all accounts, including moving testimony from his 
             children, he was devoted to his family and to his friends, 
             including to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom he 
             often disagreed. ...
                                                Thursday, March 3, 2016

               Mr. DONNELLY. ... the passing of Supreme Court Justice 
             Antonin Scalia--and our condolences to his family and our 
             gratitude for all his hard work on behalf of his country 
             ...

               Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with the passing of Supreme 
             Court Justice Antonin Scalia, our Nation has lost an 
             exceptional jurist and unshakable defender of the U.S. 
             Constitution.
               Justice Scalia will be remembered for using his 
             substantial intellect to affect how the American public 
             views the Constitution and the role of the courts in 
             interpreting the law. His thoughtful opinions over nearly 
             30 years on the Court shaped modern jurisprudence and 
             helped facilitate a larger discussion on the role of the 
             Constitution in contemporary terms and application.
               Justice Scalia had an accomplished career as an 
             attorney, law professor, General Counsel for the Office of 
             Telecommunications Policy, Chairman of the Administrative 
             Conference, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
             Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice, and as a 
             judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
             Columbia Circuit. It was an honor for me to support his 
             confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 
             following his nomination by President Reagan in 1986.
               Justice Scalia, who had a great love for the arts, 
             education, and hunting, developed an affinity for the 
             State of Mississippi and made many friends during his 
             visits to my State. Many Mississippians shared Justice 
             Scalia's interest in hunting deer, duck, quail, and 
             turkey, but his most important influence on Mississippi 
             may result from the generous time he invested speaking to 
             young scholars during his visits to university campuses in 
             my State.
               We mark Justice Scalia's passing by rightfully 
             acknowledging his many years of public service, his 
             defense of the founding principles of our Nation, and his 
             steadfast adherence to a conservative view of our 
             Constitution. I am proud to have known and supported him.
               I extend to his family sincere condolences and the 
             thanks of a grateful Nation for Justice Scalia's 
             distinguished contributions and service to our Nation.
                                                 Tuesday, March 8, 2016
               Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the entire country knows, 
             it was about 1 month ago that we lost Justice Antonin 
             Scalia. Our country is still dealing with the loss of this 
             man, whose contribution to our highest Court and the 
             health of our Constitution cannot be overstated.
               Justice Scalia understood the actual words in the 
             Constitution were important. He famously said that if the 
             American people realized what the Supreme Court did on 
             occasion, which was to substitute their value judgments 
             instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws--rather 
             to substitute their value judgments for those of the 
             people and their elected representatives--they might well 
             feel their values were superior and preferable to those of 
             an unelected life-tenured member of the U.S. Supreme 
             Court. That is an important reminder.
               Justice Scalia was known for expressing himself very 
             colorfully and clearly, and he clearly was no fan of 
             making it up as you go along, which, unfortunately, can 
             happen when the Supreme Court chooses to substitute their 
             values for those of the American people rather than 
             interpret the law and the Constitution.
               Justice Scalia was also a key figure when it came to 
             making sure the Court policed the check of Executive power 
             on legislative power. In other words, he believed in the 
             separation of powers and checks and balances. I don't 
             think it is an exaggeration to say that Justice Scalia 
             helped resuscitate our constitutional principles and 
             inspired the next generation of lawyers and legal scholars 
             and judges to care deeply about our Constitution as 
             originally written. Because of Justice Scalia, our 
             republic is stronger. ...

               Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, Antonin Scalia entered the 
             world as the son and grandson of Italian immigrants in 
             1936. When he unexpectedly departed this life last month, 
             he was the patriarch of a large American family and the 
             intellectual father of the most important legal movement 
             in generations. Between those points, he lived an 
             extraordinarily full life that helped shaped the course of 
             our country.
               By 1980, Antonin Scalia had already accomplished more at 
             the age of 44 than most can ever hope to in a lifetime. He 
             had been a distinguished lawyer, served at the highest 
             levels of the government, and taught at the country's best 
             law schools. He might have continued to develop a 
             reputation as the Nation's brightest law professor and 
             scholar, but providence had still more to ask of him.
               Upon his election, President Ronald Reagan came to 
             Washington with a mission to restore a country that seemed 
             divided and in decline. He promised to rebuild our 
             military, revive our economy, and restore our sense of 
             purpose. Just as critical as these efforts, President 
             Reagan was determined to bring new life to our Founders' 
             vision of our Constitution, which provided for carefully 
             limited government, separation of powers, and the rule of 
             law. In accordance with that determination, Reagan 
             appointed Antonin Scalia first to the critical DC Circuit 
             Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the 
             United States. The three-decade judicial career that 
             followed would establish Justice Scalia as one of the most 
             influential American jurists--and one of the most 
             consequential Americans--in our Nation's history.
               The Federal judiciary that Antonin Scalia joined in 1982 
             had, for too long, both abused and shirked its proper 
             role. It had stripped the American people and their 
             elected representatives of their legitimate powers by 
             inventing brand-new ``constitutional rights'' practically 
             out of thin air. Just as troubling, it had failed to 
             uphold the very real constitutional limits on government. 
             The courts too often treated the text of statutes as mere 
             suggestions and often appointed themselves as a kind of 
             superlegislature.
               Justice Scalia would not stand for this. He saw this 
             prevailing approach of judges as an abuse of power and a 
             threat to a free and self-governing people. For Justice 
             Scalia, the rule of law was the touchstone of liberty, and 
             judges had an important role in upholding it. He 
             understood that America has a written Constitution for 
             clear reasons: to restrict government and preserve 
             liberty. As a judge, Antonin Scalia insisted that the 
             Constitution be applied as written and originally 
             understood, not freely interpreted by unelected judges. If 
             the Constitution must change, as it has needed to 
             throughout our history, the document itself offers an 
             amendment process.
               Justice Scalia had a sharp and well-articulated legal 
             philosophy that put the text and meaning of the 
             Constitution and law front and center. A judge, Justice 
             Scalia believed, must put aside his policy preferences in 
             order to say what the law is. ``The judge who always likes 
             the results he reaches is a bad judge,'' he said.
               Justice Scalia lived out this approach on the bench. His 
             majority opinions established clear and well-articulated 
             precedents. His sharp and colorful dissents brilliantly 
             exposed moments when too many of his colleagues preferred 
             to put policy preferences and outcomes above the 
             Constitution and the rule of law. For conservatives, the 
             words ``Scalia dissents'' always offered a silver lining--
             they meant that a likely damaging legal precedent would at 
             least come prepackaged with a wonderfully readable 
             corrective.
               Whether he was on the majority or minority side of a 
             decision, the forceful logic and clear phrasing of Justice 
             Scalia's opinions commanded attention and engagement. Over 
             time, his most reliable intellectual adversaries found 
             themselves increasingly forced to fight on the ground he 
             established. While Justice Scalia did not win every 
             argument, he changed the conversation forever. Judicial 
             activism no longer has a free hand because Antonin Scalia 
             challenged it and inspired an entire generation of legal 
             minds to follow his example.
               His judicial writing alone would have changed American 
             law and advanced the cause of liberty, but Justice Scalia 
             went further than that. He wrote books, lectured, and 
             mentored students. He traveled around the country, engaged 
             the media, and debated colleagues and critics. His many 
             law clerks now distinguish themselves throughout the legal 
             profession. The Federalist Society, which he helped 
             nurture in its fledgling years, now provides a lively 
             forum for a variety of conservative and libertarian 
             perspectives on law. Antonin Scalia has left us a legal 
             culture absolutely transformed from the one he found.
               Justice Scalia's judicial opinions, legal philosophy, 
             and forceful advocacy for the rule of law inspired me as a 
             law student and continue to inspire me to this day. While 
             a wide array of life experiences and values have shaped 
             the way I see America and the world, Antonin Scalia has 
             been the single most important influence on my view of the 
             Constitution and the proper role of judges in our republic 
             as men and women who should put the original meaning of 
             our Constitution ahead of their policy preferences.
               Justice Scalia's life is a testimony to the fact that 
             ideas matter. It is proof that a person of principle, with 
             the willingness to invest in debate and persuasion, can 
             change history. His life also reminds us of another 
             important truth. Particularly in these sharply divided 
             partisan times, we can lose sight of the fact that the 
             things that unite us are more important than the things 
             that divide us. Justice Scalia never did. He knew the 
             Constitution was his sole guide in his professional life, 
             but he was also a devout Catholic who accepted that God 
             has a plan for all of us. He took evident joy in living 
             out his faith, in loving his family, and in nurturing 
             countless friendships, even with his ideological foes. We 
             should all be grateful that God's plan for our Nation, 
             especially the people whose paths he crossed, included 
             having Justice Scalia on the Court for the past 29 years. 
             He was a role model for all of us and particularly for 
             Christians in public life.
               As a U.S. Senator, I led a bipartisan group of 
             colleagues in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. 
             The brief, submitted in the case of Town of Greece v. 
             Galloway, defended the practice of legislative prayer. It 
             argued that the original meaning of the First Amendment 
             clearly did not require the purging of religious 
             expression from the public square. I attended the oral 
             argument in the case and will forever be grateful for 
             having had the opportunity to watch Justice Scalia's sharp 
             and incisive questioning from the bench.
               Although I did not have the good fortune to get to know 
             Justice Scalia personally, he had a profound impact on me. 
             All those who cherish the Constitution and limited 
             government mourn this great loss. Justice Scalia was a 
             brilliant legal mind who served with honor, distinction, 
             and only one legal objective: to interpret and defend the 
             Constitution as written. He is a model for exactly what 
             his successor and all future Justices should strive to be 
             on the highest Court in the land.
               Antonin Scalia left us far too soon, but his legacy will 
             remain with us as long as we remain a republic under law.

               Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, it is an honor to pay 
             tribute to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia 
             was a staunch defender of the Constitution who, above all, 
             sought to uphold the original meaning of its text. He 
             steadfastly adhered to his oath of office, which directed 
             him to ``administer justice without respect to persons, 
             [to] do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and [to] 
             faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all [his] 
             duties ... under the Constitution and laws of the United 
             States.'' In doing so, he recognized this approach to 
             judicial interpretation might conflict with popular 
             opinion. As Justice Scalia once stated: ``If you're going 
             to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign 
             yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like 
             the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, 
             you're probably doing something wrong.''
               A few years ago, I had the privilege of visiting the 
             Supreme Court to listen to oral arguments in the case of 
             National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which 
             concerned the scope of the President's authority to make 
             recess appointments. I recall being struck by Justice 
             Scalia's probing questions and his ability to immediately 
             get to the crux of an issue; yet Justice Scalia never 
             lacked civility when making an argument. As he once said, 
             ``I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very 
             good people have some very bad ideas.''
               Justice Scalia was known for more than his 
             jurisprudence. The son of immigrants and the first Italian 
             American to serve on the Supreme Court, he is remembered 
             by many for his strong belief in the American dream. A 
             former law clerk recalled how he introduced Justice Scalia 
             to his grandfather, a Holocaust survivor. The clerk's 
             grandfather was nervous to meet a member of the Court, but 
             Scalia embraced the man. He said he was honored to meet a 
             man who represented everything that made him proud to be 
             an American.
               Justice Scalia was also a loving husband to Maureen, his 
             wife of almost 56 years, and the father of nine children 
             and many grandchildren. Antonin Scalia often noted that 
             his wife deserved all the credit for their children's 
             accomplishments. Each year, the ranks of Scalia alumni 
             would grow, and he would visit with each of them and their 
             families, even nicknaming their children as his 
             ``grandclerks.'' Justice Scalia was also a man of faith 
             and looked to the Roman Catholic Church as a guiding force 
             in his life. One of the Justice's former law clerks 
             recalled that Scalia's faith inspired the clerk to deepen 
             his own embrace of religion.
               Antonin Scalia loved hunting, the opera, anchovy pizza, 
             and red wine. He was known for taking law clerks to lunch 
             at A.V. Ristorante, an Italian restaurant in Washington 
             that has since closed down. He insisted they order anchovy 
             pizza and red wine, and he was said to be dismayed when a 
             clerk declined one or the other. After A.V. Ristorante 
             closed, he would lead clerks in a hunt for a worthy 
             replacement.
               Of course, as Justice Breyer once noted, Justice Scalia 
             ``loved nothing better than a great argument.'' Although 
             he frequently disagreed with his colleagues on the Court, 
             Justice Scalia formed deep bonds and friendships with his 
             fellow Justices and respected their views. As Justice 
             Breyer recalled:

               We both would hope that the audience of students or 
             senators would leave not with a better sense of who was 
             right, but with a greater respect for the institution we 
             represented. They would see that sometimes we disagreed, 
             that we nonetheless understood and paid attention to each 
             other's points of view, that those views were serious 
             views, and that we were friends. And we were good friends.

               When Justice Elena Kagan joined the Supreme Court the 
             two became hunting buddies. A few times a year, they would 
             go hunting together to enjoy a shared appreciation for 
             this sport. But it was his deep friendship with Justice 
             Ruth Bader Ginsburg that was well known to many. She 
             stated recently: ``How blessed I was to have a friend of 
             such brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit ... we were 
             different, yes, yet one in our reverence for the court and 
             its place in the U.S. system of governance.''
               Justice Scalia will be remembered for his brilliant 
             legal mind and faithful dedication to the Constitution. We 
             will also remember his humor, his spirituality, his love 
             for his family, and his ability to find common ground even 
             in the face of disagreement. Let us pray for his family 
             and friends as we proudly celebrate his service to our 
             country.
                                               Wednesday, March 9, 2016
               Mr. COTTON. ... For a generation, Justice Nino Scalia 
             was the conservative heart of the Supreme Court. Whoever 
             takes his seat will not replace him because there is no 
             replacement ...

               Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, the 
             Supreme Court lost one of its Justices, our Nation lost a 
             true legal giant.
               Justice Scalia was described by colleagues as 
             ``extraordinary,'' ``treasured,'' and a ``stylistic 
             genius.'' Beyond his unwavering dedication to upholding 
             the originalist viewpoint of the Constitution, Justice 
             Scalia was also wholeheartedly committed to his family. He 
             was a husband, father of 9, and grandfather to 36 
             grandchildren.
               His son Paul said of him during his homily:

               God blessed Dad with a love for his family. ... He was 
             the father that God gave us for the great adventure of 
             family life. ... He loved us, and sought to show that 
             love. And sought to share the blessing of the faith he 
             treasured. And he gave us one another, to have each other 
             for support. That's the greatest wealth parents can 
             bestow, and right now we are particularly grateful for it.

               Justice Antonin Scalia was nominated to the Supreme 
             Court in 1986 by President Reagan and was confirmed by the 
             Senate in a unanimous vote. While his time on the Court 
             often led to some criticism of his legal opinions and his 
             very colorful dissents, he remained respected by his 
             colleagues, even those at the opposite end of the judicial 
             spectrum. This is a sign of true character--to have an 
             open, honest debate about a particular issue while 
             respecting the individual person holding an opinion 
             different from your own.
               Justice Scalia said:

               I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very 
             good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't 
             separate the two, you gotta get another day job.

               The sentiment was best portrayed through his friendship 
             with Justice Ginsburg. As one of his friends, she said:

               We are different, but we are one. Different in our 
             interpretation of written texts. One in our reverence for 
             the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our 
             years together on the DC Circuit, we were best buddies. We 
             disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and 
             received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released 
             was notably better than my initial circulation.

               Justice Scalia was known for his wit and his sarcasm in 
             his writings, famously referring to legal interpretations 
             of his colleagues as ``jiggery-pokery,'' ``pure 
             applesauce,'' and ``a ghoul in a late horror movie.'' Yet 
             it was these same criticisms that Justice Ginsburg said 
             nailed the weak spots in her opinions and gave her what 
             she needed to strengthen her writings.
               Justice Scalia represented a consistent, constitutional 
             voice on the Supreme Court. Just as the Constitution is 
             the pillar of our legal system, so too is his affirmation 
             to this foundational document of our Nation. He said:

               It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend. 
             ... It's what did the words mean to the people who 
             ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the 
             Constitution, as opposed to what people today would like.

               Justice Kennedy said:

               In years to come any history of the Supreme Court will, 
             and must, recount the wisdom, scholarship, and technical 
             brilliance that Justice Scalia brought to the Court. His 
             insistence on demanding standards shaped the work of the 
             Court in its private discussions, its oral arguments, and 
             its written opinions. Yet these historic achievements are 
             all the more impressive and compelling because the 
             foundations of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence, the driving 
             force in all his work, and his powerful personality were 
             shaped by an unyielding commitment to the Constitution of 
             the United States and to the highest ethical and moral 
             standards. ...

               Justice Stephen Breyer, just a few weeks ago, stated 
             this about the passing of Justice Scalia, ``We'll miss 
             him, but we'll do our work. For the most part, it will not 
             change.'' ...

               Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, last month we all learned 
             with great sadness of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing 
             after nearly 30 years on the Court. He would have turned 
             80 years old on Friday, March 11.
               In recent weeks, foremost on people's minds as they 
             reflect on Justice Scalia's legacy and his life is his 
             dedication to the letter of the law, his respect for 
             constitutional and statutory text, his view that the U.S. 
             Constitution is a sacred document which must be read and 
             adhered to.
               His decisions and opinions were aimed to follow the 
             Constitution wherever it took him, even if it may not have 
             been to a place where he would agree politically. Justice 
             Scalia not only understood the importance of not 
             legislating from the bench, but he also cared deeply about 
             the lesson being taught by the work of the Court. Through 
             his writings, his opinions, including his dissents, he 
             taught us great lessons. ...
               He wrote many opinions arguing for exactly what I am 
             saying: Read the clear language that is at issue--either 
             the Constitution or a statute or whatever is at issue. He 
             wrote opinions against what before his time was rampant 
             use of so-called legislative history, looking at the 
             history of how a law was passed really to give people 
             fodder to make it up as they go along and reach almost any 
             conclusion and interpretation they want to. Justice Scalia 
             taught us--and he had a real impact on the Court through 
             his decisions--that we need an unwavering commitment to 
             principle and respect to statutory text as written.
               As he often said in so many different ways, 
             ``Legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory 
             text is clear.'' In one opinion he noted that ``if one 
             were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the 
             whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one 
             could hardly find a more promising candidate than 
             legislative history.'' ...
               The Court has strayed from Justice Scalia's proper 
             philosophy of actually reading the Constitution and 
             reading statutory text and applying it as written. So many 
             Louisianans feel as I do; that they are making it up, in 
             many cases, as they go along; that they are legislating 
             from the bench; that they are using clever techniques, 
             such as looking to legislative history--something Justice 
             Scalia, as I noted, railed against--as ammunition to get 
             to whatever endpoint they desire to get to. That is not 
             the role of any court, certainly not the role of the 
             Supreme Court. ...

               Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember 
             Justice Antonin Scalia and thank him for his service to 
             the Supreme Court and the country.
               Justice Scalia was a first-generation American, and his 
             life was a testament to the American dream. A student of 
             history and the law, Antonin Scalia had a commitment to 
             public service that culminated in his appointment as an 
             Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President Ronald 
             Reagan in 1986.
               Justice Scalia served on the Court for almost 30 years 
             and in that time made many important contributions to our 
             legal system. While he had firm convictions, he also loved 
             people and never let ideas get in the way of friendship, 
             most notably with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
               Senator Margaret Chase Smith once said, ``Public service 
             must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It 
             must be a complete dedication to the people and to the 
             nation.''
               Justice Scalia believed in that complete dedication. Our 
             thoughts and prayers remain with his family at this time, 
             and we thank him and them for his service.
                                               Thursday, March 10, 2016
               Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Nation has lost one of 
             the greatest Justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court, 
             Antonin Scalia. My condolences and prayers go out to his 
             wife of 55 years, Maureen, his 9 children, and 36 
             grandchildren.
               My thought is that Justice Scalia's greatness was 
             founded on the power of his ideas. His defense of those 
             founding principles of America at the highest intellectual 
             level is unprecedented, to my knowledge, in the United 
             States. Over his career, he moved the legal world. As a 
             young lawyer out of law school, I remember what the trends 
             were and how Justice Scalia relentlessly, intellectually, 
             aggressively, and soundly drove the message that many of 
             the ideas that are out there today are inconsistent with 
             the rule of law and the American tradition.
               The trend was relentlessly toward activism. Judges were 
             praised if they advanced the law--not when they followed 
             the law, or served under the law, or the Constitution, but 
             if they advanced it. By advancing it, what that really 
             means is you change it. If you advance it, it means the 
             legislature hadn't passed something that you would like, 
             or the Constitution doesn't advance an idea that you like, 
             then you figure out a way to reinterpret the meaning of 
             the words so it says what you would like it to say and 
             what you wish the legislature had passed.
               One of the bogus ideas at that time--you don't hear much 
             about it anymore, but it was current, and it was 
             mainstream then--was that the ink-stained parchment, well 
             over 200 years old and right over in the Archives 
             Building, was alive. Our Constitution, they said, was a 
             living document.
               Well, how ridiculous is that? The judges said that the 
             Constitution gave them the power to update it, advance it, 
             and make it say what they wanted it to say. They even 
             contended that it was the duty of the judge, not just the 
             privilege of the judge, to advance the words of the 
             Constitution. Justice Scalia saw this as a direct threat, 
             and he understood at the most fundamental level who was 
             threatened by it, and that was ``we the people.''
               You know how the Constitution begins with ``We the 
             People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
             perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
             Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 
             general Welfare ... do ordain and establish''? Well, 
             friends and colleagues, we establish this Constitution, 
             the one we have, not the one some judge would like it to 
             be or some politician would like it to be but the one we 
             have.
               He boldly criticized the idea that a mere five judges--
             it just takes five out of nine--with lifetime appointments 
             are totally unaccountable to the American people. We are 
             prohibited from even reducing their pay, which I support 
             because we want an independent judiciary. ...
               Judges need to know they are given independence and a 
             lifetime appointment because we trust them to serve under 
             the Constitution and not above it. They serve under the 
             laws duly passed by the elected representatives of the 
             people of the United States, not above those laws. They 
             were not given the power to set policies that they would 
             like to set no matter how strongly they feel about it. 
             That is not what they have been given to do. He boldly 
             criticized those ideas and those individuals and didn't 
             mind saying it in plain words: You are setting policy, you 
             are not following the law.
               I would say that Professor Van Aylstyne--while at 
             William & Mary or Duke--had a great quote about this. He 
             said, ``If you really honor the Constitution, if you 
             really respect the Constitution, you will reinforce it as 
             it is written whether you like it or not.''
               If judges today can twist the Constitution to make it 
             say something it was not intended to mean, how might a new 
             Court--five judges in a new age a decade or two from now--
             reinterpret the words to advance an agenda during that 
             time? Isn't that a blow to the very concept of the 
             democratic republic we have? I think so.
               I will tell you that this has been a long and tough 
             intellectual battle. You don't hear many people say that 
             paper document over in the Archives is a living thing. Of 
             course it is not a living thing. It is a contract. The 
             American people have a contract with their government. 
             They gave it certain powers and reserved certain powers 
             for themselves. They reserved certain powers for their 
             States, and the Federal Government is a government with 
             limited power. This is absolutely, undeniably fundamental, 
             and people don't fully understand it today. ...
               One of the things that I think is very unfortunate is 
             that judges have created an incredible amount of law that 
             is contrary to common sense in the area of religion in the 
             public life of America. Many of these cases are very 
             confusing. But Justice Scalia, in a series of cases where 
             he wrote the majority opinion, or wrote the dissent, or 
             wrote concurring opinions, applied the principles of the 
             Constitution as they were intended to lay out a lawful and 
             commonsense framework for faith in the public square. I 
             think that is a significant achievement.
               When Chief Justice Roberts came before our committee for 
             confirmation, I remember telling him:

               Sir, I would like you to try to clear up and bring some 
             common sense to the expression of faith. You have a right 
             to free speech in America, you have a right to the free 
             exercise of religion under the Constitution, so how has it 
             gotten around that you can be protected more in filthy 
             speech than you can be protected in religious speech?

               So as I said, Justice Scalia issued a series of opinions 
             that were important on this subject. For example, in 1992, 
             the Supreme Court decided Lee v. Weisman. This case 
             involved a challenge to a Rhode Island public school 
             policy that permitted a member of the clergy to deliver 
             prayers at middle school graduation ceremonies. In this 
             instance, a rabbi had delivered a prayer at one such 
             ceremony, and one of the families in attendance that 
             objected brought suit, alleging that the school's policy 
             permitting prayer at graduation was a violation of the 
             First Amendment's establishment clause. By a vote of 5 to 
             4, the Supreme Court concluded that the school's policy 
             violated the establishment clause. Justice Scalia 
             dissented. He wrote:

               In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits 
             invocations and benedictions at public school graduation 
             ceremonies, the Court--with nary a mention that it is 
             doing so--lays waste a tradition that is as old as public 
             school graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a 
             component of an even more longstanding American tradition 
             of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations 
             generally.

               Two years later, the Supreme Court decided Board of 
             Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. 
             Grumet. This case involved a challenge to a New York 
             statute that tracked village boundaries to create a public 
             school district for practitioners of a strict form of 
             Judaism known as Satmar Hasidim. By a vote of 6 to 3, the 
             Court concluded that the government had drawn political 
             boundaries on the basis of religious faith in violation of 
             the First Amendment's establishment clause. Justice Scalia 
             dissented. He wrote:

               The Founding Fathers would be astonished to find that 
             the Establishment Clause--which they designed to insure 
             that no one powerful sect or combination of sects could 
             use political or governmental power to punish dissenters, 
             has been employed to prohibit characteristically and 
             admirably American accommodation of the religious 
             practices--or more precisely, cultural peculiarities--of a 
             tiny minority sect. ... Once this Court has abandoned text 
             and history as guides, nothing prevents it from calling 
             religious toleration the establishment of religion.

               Ten years later, in 2004, the Supreme Court decided 
             Locke v. Davey. In this case, a student challenged a 
             Washington State statute which created a scholarship for 
             students enrolled ``at least half time in an eligible 
             postsecondary institution in the state of Washington,'' 
             but excluded from eligibility for this scholarship 
             students seeking degrees in devotional theology. A student 
             sued to enjoin Washington from refusing to award him a 
             scholarship. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court upheld 
             the statute. Justice Scalia dissented. He wrote that:

               When the State makes a public benefit generally 
             available, that benefit becomes part of the baseline 
             against which burdens on religion are measured; and when 
             the State withholds that benefit from some individuals 
             solely on the basis of religion, it violates the Free 
             Exercise Clause no less than if it had imposed a special 
             tax. That is precisely what the State of Washington has 
             done here. It has created a generally available public 
             benefit, whose receipt is conditioned only on academic 
             performance, income, and attendance at an accredited 
             school. It has then carved out a solitary course of study 
             for exclusion: theology.

               The next year, the Supreme Court decided McCreary County 
             v. ACLU of Kentucky. This case involved a challenge to the 
             placement of the Ten Commandments on the walls inside two 
             Kentucky courthouses. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme 
             Court held that the placement of the Ten Commandments 
             inside of courthouses was a violation of the First 
             Amendment's establishment clause. Justice Scalia 
             dissented. He wrote that:

               Historical practices demonstrate that there is a 
             distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator 
             and the establishment of a religion. The former is, as 
             Marsh v. Chambers put it, ``a tolerable acknowledgment of 
             beliefs widely held among the people of this country.'' 
             The three most popular religions in the United States, 
             Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--which combined account 
             for 97.7% of all believers--are monotheistic. All of them, 
             moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten 
             Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine 
             prescriptions for a virtuous life. Publicly honoring the 
             Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as 
             discriminating against other religions is concerned, from 
             publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized 
             across such a broad and diverse range of the population--
             from Christians to Muslims--that they cannot be reasonably 
             understood as a government endorsement of a particular 
             religious viewpoint.

               More recently in 2014, Justice Scalia dissented from a 
             denial of certiorari in the case of Elmbrook School 
             District v. Doe. In this case, the entire Seventh Circuit, 
             over three dissents, held that a suburban Milwaukee public 
             high school district violated the establishment clause of 
             the First Amendment by holding its graduation in a 
             nondenominational church. Justice Scalia wrote that:

               Some there are--many, perhaps--who are offended by 
             public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a 
             personal matter; if it must be given external 
             manifestation, that should not occur in public places 
             where others may be offended. I can understand that 
             attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public 
             of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially 
             annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs 
             while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal 
             bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.
               In this case, at the request of the student bodies of 
             the two relevant schools, the Elmbrook School District 
             decided to hold its high-school graduation ceremonies at 
             Elmbrook Church, a nondenominational Christian house of 
             worship. The students of the first school to move its 
             ceremonies preferred that site to what had been the usual 
             venue, the school's gymnasium, which was cramped, hot, and 
             uncomfortable. The church offered more space, air 
             conditioning, and cushioned seating. No one disputes that 
             the church was chosen only because of these amenities.
               In this case, it is beyond dispute that no religious 
             exercise whatever occurred. At most, respondents complain 
             that they took offense at being in a religious place. It 
             bears emphasis that the original understanding of the kind 
             of coercion that the Establishment Clause condemns was far 
             narrower than the sort of peer-pressure coercion that this 
             Court has recently held unconstitutional.

               Although many of his dissents were memorable, not all of 
             Justice Scalia's notable opinions on religion in public 
             life were issued in dissent. In 1995, Justice Scalia wrote 
             the opinion for the Court in Capitol Square Review and 
             Advisory Board v. Pinette, where the Court rejected an 
             establishment clause challenge to the Christmas season 
             display of an unattended Latin cross in a plaza next to 
             the Ohio State Capitol. Writing for the Court, Justice 
             Scalia said:

               Respondents' religious display in Capitol Square was 
             private expression. Our precedent establishes that private 
             religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, 
             is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as 
             secular private expression. Indeed, in Anglo-American 
             history, at least, government suppression of speech has so 
             commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that 
             a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet 
             without the prince.

               Just last term, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the 
             Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, a case about 
             accommodation on the basis of religion in the employment 
             environment. In this case, a Muslim individual who wore a 
             head scarf as part of her religious observance applied for 
             a job at a clothing retailer, but was not hired due to the 
             company's policy, which prohibited employees from wearing 
             ``caps.'' In reversing the court of appeals in favor of 
             the applicant, Justice Scalia wrote that:

               Congress defined ``religion'' for Title VII purposes as 
             ``including all aspects of religious observance and 
             practice, as well as belief.'' Thus, religious practice is 
             one of the protected characteristics that cannot be 
             accorded disparate treatment and must be accommodated.

               As we see, these opinions by Justice Scalia involve 
             parties of varied faiths--Christians, Jews, and Muslims. 
             Regardless of the identity of the party, Justice Scalia's 
             opinions on religion in public life consistently evidence 
             a deep respect for the unique history of religious 
             pluralism in this country and a heartfelt appreciation for 
             its positive impact across the landscape of the Nation. 
             While some may say his opinions are not consistent, I 
             disagree. Religion in American life is an important and 
             complex subject. Judges must think carefully but not 
             abandon common sense as so many opinions have. Justice 
             Scalia saw limits on free exercise of religion when it 
             came to the contention, for example, that one's religion 
             required the use of drugs that a State had declared 
             illegal.
               So this is an important area that needs to be cleared up 
             so that we can bring some reality to the question of the 
             expression of religious conviction in public life. Because 
             the Constitution says we shall not establish a religion--
             Congress shall not establish a religion. It doesn't say 
             States couldn't establish a religion; it says Congress 
             can't establish a religion. It also says ``nor shall 
             Congress prohibit the free exercise thereof.'' So you 
             can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.
               I think we have forgotten the free exercise clause and 
             over-interpreted the establishment of religion. Some 
             States at the time had established religions. Most of the 
             countries in Europe had a religion that they put in law 
             for their country, and we said, ``No, we are not going to 
             establish any religion here. You have the right to 
             exercise your religious faith as you choose.''
               Madison and Jefferson particularly believed it was 
             absolutely unacceptable for this government to tell people 
             how to relate to that person they considered to be their 
             creator. That was a personal relationship that ought to be 
             respected and the government ought to have no role in it.
               Like Madison and Jefferson, Justice Scalia, too, 
             believed in American exceptionalism. Indeed, he was truly 
             exceptional. Although he will be impossible to replace, 
             his seat on the Supreme Court will eventually be filled by 
             the next President. After that nominee is confirmed, his 
             or her decisions will likely impact our Nation for the 
             next 30 years and far beyond. Next year, when we debate 
             this eventual nominee's qualifications to assume Justice 
             Scalia's seat, we need look no further than his own words 
             for wisdom to guide us as we consider our decision. In no 
             uncertain terms, Justice Scalia's McCreary County dissent 
             reminds us that:

               What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship 
             of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely 
             indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be 
             grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what 
             prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that--thumbs 
             up or thumbs down--as their personal preferences dictate.

               That is the governing principle that Justice Scalia 
             abided by--unwavering commitment to the rule of law even 
             when reaching the outcome that the law dictated did not 
             align with his policy preferences. This--above all 
             things--is the duty of a judge or Justice, and it is a 
             principle that has fallen by the wayside far too often in 
             recent years. It is imperative that we keep these words in 
             mind when we consider appointments not only to the Supreme 
             Court, but all lifetime appointments to the Federal 
             judiciary.
               I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

               Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, Supreme 
             Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in his sleep. He 
             was an enduring legacy of the Reagan administration and 
             the conservative standard not only on the Supreme Court 
             but for the entire American judicial community.
               History will remember Antonin Scalia as a stalwart 
             defender of the Constitution and a brilliant legal mind. 
             He authored the majority opinion on countless rulings of 
             the Court, preserving and protecting our Nation's founding 
             principles. His intellectual honesty, as well as his 
             humor, will be greatly missed.
               Justice Scalia played a pivotal role in the shaping of 
             constitutional interpretation throughout his 30-year 
             tenure on the Supreme Court. He had within him a fervor 
             for law and order; yet he demonstrated a warmth that 
             resonated with many colleagues on both sides of the 
             political divide.
               Antonin Scalia built meaningful relationships across 
             that divide which were indicative of the strength of his 
             character. Hadley Arkes, an expert in constitutional law, 
             said that Justice Scalia was able to ``find something 
             redeeming and likeable in just about everyone he met, 
             regardless of politics.'' This was no doubt a reflection 
             of his strong Christian background and tremendous 
             character.
               You can learn the character of a man best by listening 
             to how those who knew him speak of him. Former colleagues 
             and intellectual adversaries alike are unrestrained in 
             their kind words for Justice Scalia.
               Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke fondly of the 
             late Justice, saying: ``Nino sparkled with enthusiasm, 
             energy, sense of humor, insight, and seriousness of 
             purpose--the very qualities that I and his other 
             colleagues have benefited from in more recent years.''
               Justice Thomas described Antonin Scalia as a patriot 
             with a true calling for interpreting the Constitution and 
             noted that their relationship flourished based on that 
             common interest. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also 
             described their relationship as close and ``how blessed 
             she was to have a friend of such brilliance, high spirits, 
             and quick wit.''
               Antonin Scalia had a positive impact on so many lives as 
             a Justice, a colleague, a father, and a friend. His 
             demeanor was just and fair, but marked with personality 
             and humor. Late Justice Scalia was a staunch defender of 
             the Constitution, rendering unbiased opinions and a unique 
             perspective.

               Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I honor the late 
             Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin 
             Scalia.
               During his many years of serving our country, Justice 
             Scalia proved to be a great defender of our constitutional 
             liberties. Regardless of one's politics, it is undeniable 
             that Justice Scalia was a true patriot whose passion for 
             upholding our American principles was matched only by his 
             eloquence and intellect.
               Justice Scalia's record of public service stretched from 
             the time President Nixon appointed him as General Counsel 
             of the Office of Telecommunications Policy in 1971 to when 
             President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of 
             the Supreme Court in 1986, where he served until his death 
             in February 2016. Before and intermingled during this 
             service, Justice Scalia also served as an extremely 
             talented attorney in private practice, a brilliant law 
             professor, including for my alma mater Tulane Law School 
             in its summer programs, and an effective leader in the 
             U.S. Justice Department at a number of levels.
               One of the single most memorable events in my time in 
             the Senate was when Justice Scalia agreed to visit with 
             and speak to me and my staff. His presence and authority 
             impressed all of us and, as he discussed a number of 
             topics including the importance of protecting our 
             constitutional rights; I admit to being awestruck. It was 
             a great honor to hear directly from one of the most 
             significant jurists in American history, and I know my 
             staff remember that day as clearly as I do.
               One thing that distinguished Justice Scalia was not 
             necessarily what he did, but what he chose not to do. As a 
             staunch adherent of limited, constitutional government, on 
             numerous occasions, he advocated for the Court to separate 
             itself from political fights or matters involving 
             individuals who are free to decide their own fate. 
             Originalism, the theory that the clear meaning given to 
             words in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers should 
             be honored, was prevalent in Justice Scalia's decisions. 
             He abhorred judicial activism, and he correctly understood 
             that the place for instituting laws was in the 
             legislature, where the will of the people is 
             democratically represented.
               I know that Justice Scalia will also be remembered for 
             his upbeat nature, affability, charm, and wit. At the 
             heart of his larger-than-life personality was an educator, 
             a person who not only ruled on the law, but also took the 
             opportunity to inform readers of his opinions about the 
             history behind the decisions.
               I commend his lifetime commitment as a public servant 
             and hope his example will inspire us all as we work to 
             respect the Constitution and protect the freedoms of all 
             Americans. We would be wise to follow Justice Scalia's 
             lead in remembering America's founding principles as we 
             are deciding matters of the future.
               I also wish to express our deepest condolences to his 
             wife, Maureen, and to the rest of his family. I am honored 
             to join with the rest of the U.S. Senate in celebrating 
             the wonderful memory and lasting legacy of Justice Antonin 
             Scalia.

               Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in 
             expressing the deepest respect and admiration for Supreme 
             Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Our country has lost a 
             brilliant, principled, and determined jurist.
               For three decades, Justice Scalia invigorated the 
             Supreme Court, becoming an icon for constitutional 
             originalism. He had a remarkable ability to espouse legal 
             theory with memorable turns of phrase, and he could expose 
             gaps in opposing opinions with laserlike precision. He did 
             not fear differences of opinion but embraced the 
             intellectual challenge that conflicting viewpoints could 
             offer. The enduring friendships he made with those across 
             the ideological spectrum are a true testament to his 
             indomitable scholarship.
               Antonin Scalia had a distinguished career in law, 
             academia, and public service before being confirmed to the 
             DC Circuit and later the Supreme Court. The many accolades 
             and achievements of his biography are well known. But 
             Antonin, fondly known as ``Nino,'' was much more than an 
             extraordinary legal mind. He was man of faith and family, 
             raising nine children with his wife, Maureen.
               His son, Christopher, wrote this in the Washington Post 
             following his father's death: ``As proud as we are of his 
             legacy as a jurist, of course it's his presence in our 
             personal lives that we'll miss the most.'' To his 
             children, he was a loving father who took them to Sunday 
             mass, listened to Bach in his study, and never shied away 
             from playfulness at the dinner table.
               We will remember Justice Scalia in my home State of 
             Mississippi, where we were honored to host him over the 
             years. We shared with him our variety of Southern 
             hospitality during his regular visits to the Magnolia 
             State in pursuit of duck, deer, and turkey. When he wasn't 
             outdoors, he spent time educating the public, especially 
             college students, delivering thought-provoking lectures at 
             the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State 
             University, the University of Southern Mississippi, 
             William Carey University, and MUW.
               Justice Scalia's unanimous confirmation as the first 
             Italian-American Justice was a historic moment for the 
             Supreme Court and the beginning of a legendary tenure that 
             will have a profound effect for generations to come. He 
             leaves a vibrant legacy--perhaps most notably 
             characterized by his steadfast protection of the 
             Constitution as the Framers intended it. As I said shortly 
             after learning the news of his death, ``I like to think 
             Antonin Scalia and James Madison are having the damnedest 
             visit right now.''

               Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, today we honor the life and 
             public service of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 
             whose passing signifies a great loss for our country. 
             Justice Scalia was a devoted family man, scholar, and 
             tireless public servant. He faithfully served Nevadans and 
             all Americans for over 29 years on our Nation's highest 
             Court. My thoughts and prayers continue to go out to his 
             wife, Maureen, and the entire Scalia family.
               Born on March 11, 1936, to Salvatore and Catherine 
             Scalia, Justice Scalia was a disciplined, intellectual 
             conservative from a young age. A diligent student who 
             studied his way to become valedictorian at Georgetown 
             University and graduating magna cum laude at Harvard Law 
             School, Justice Scalia began his legal career in 
             Cleveland, OH, in 1961. After practicing law for 6 years 
             in Cleveland, Justice Scalia accepted a position teaching 
             administrative law at the University of Virginia.
               Justice Scalia entered public service in 1972, during 
             which he served as General Counsel for the Office of 
             Telecommunications Policy and Chairman of the 
             Administrative Conference of the United States. In these 
             positions, he expanded his expertise in administrative 
             law, a topic that interested him throughout his career. In 
             1974 Justice Scalia became the Assistant Attorney General 
             for the Office of Legal Counsel. It was here that Justice 
             Scalia would argue and later win his first case before the 
             U.S. Supreme Court.
               In 1982 President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Scalia 
             to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 
             Justice Scalia's originalist mindset, keen perception, and 
             witty writing caught the attention of President Reagan, 
             making Justice Scalia a top prospect to fill a potential 
             Supreme Court vacancy. In 1986, Justice Scalia was 
             confirmed by the Senate upon the retirement of Chief 
             Justice Warren Burger. As a Supreme Court Justice, Justice 
             Scalia would dramatically change the Court through his 
             powerful dissents and sharp oral arguments.
               Throughout his over 30-year tenure on the bench, Justice 
             Scalia never strayed from his conservative principles and 
             steadfast dedication to upholding the Constitution. His 
             prominent leadership and originalist philosophy will never 
             be forgotten as his legacy will live on through 
             generations. I ask my colleagues and all Nevadans to join 
             me today in remembering and celebrating the life of 
             Justice Antonin Scalia.

               Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, Antonin Scalia was one of the 
             greatest Supreme Court Justices in the history of our 
             country. A lion of the law, Justice Scalia spent his 
             tenure on the bench championing federalism, the separation 
             of powers, and our fundamental liberties. He was a 
             passionate defender of the Constitution--not the 
             Constitution as it has been contorted and revised by 
             generations of activist Justices, but the Constitution as 
             it was understood by the people who ratified it and made 
             it the law of the land. Antonin Scalia understood that if 
             the Constitution's meaning was not grounded in its text, 
             history, and structure, but could instead be revised by 
             judicial fiat, then the people were no longer sovereign. 
             No longer would the Nation be governed by law, which 
             expresses the will of the people; it would be governed by, 
             as Justice Scalia put it, ``an unelected committee of 
             nine.'' This, he believed, ``robs the People of the most 
             important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of 
             Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the 
             freedom to govern themselves.''
               As one of the leading advocates of this restrained 
             judicial philosophy, Justice Scalia became an intellectual 
             force on the Court, where he authored a number of 
             noteworthy majority opinions. In 1997, for example, Scalia 
             wrote the opinion in Printz v. United States, one of the 
             few cases in the last century where the Supreme Court has 
             actually limited the Federal Government's power to coerce 
             the States. In 2001 in Kyllo v. United States, he led the 
             Court in holding that the Fourth Amendment requires the 
             government to obtain a warrant before using high-tech 
             equipment to invade the sanctity of the home. In 2008 he 
             penned the lead opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 
             which finally recognized the people's individual right 
             under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
               As important as these majority opinions were, though, 
             Justice Scalia was even better known for his dissents, in 
             which he let his true personality--jovial, acerbic, and 
             witty--fully shine through. Justice Scalia understood that 
             changing the languishing legal culture would take drastic 
             measures, so he wrote his dissents with a specific target 
             in mind: law students. His aim? To delight their senses 
             and engage their brains. To this end, he liberally 
             employed colorful metaphors, pithy phrases, and biting 
             logic; and he mercilessly, yet playfully, exposed the 
             abundant flaws in the writing and reasoning of other 
             Justices. Pure applesauce. Jiggery-pokery. Argle-bargle. 
             If you squinted hard enough, you could almost convince 
             yourself that G.K. Chesterton had taken a seat on the 
             Supreme Court.
               But perhaps the highest compliment I can pay to Justice 
             Scalia is this: Several of his key opinions went against 
             some of his staunchest supporters--and they still loved 
             him. Why is that?
               The answer is simple: Even in disagreement, Justice 
             Scalia's supporters had confidence that he did not make up 
             his mind by reading the political tea leaves, by voting 
             lockstep with ideological cohorts, or by working his way 
             backward from a desired end to whatever means was 
             necessary to reach that end. Rather, he actually attempted 
             to interpret the law; that is, he consistently did his 
             best to come to a conclusion based on the only items that 
             make a Supreme Court opinion valid in the first place: 
             text and logic.
               You don't have to take my word on this, though. Unlike 
             many in our modern society who espouse ``diversity'' yet 
             surround themselves with ideological yes-men, Justice 
             Scalia actively sought out opposing views. His typical 
             practice was to hire at least one ``liberal'' law clerk 
             per term so that he would always have someone calling him 
             out for unexpected mistakes and weaknesses. In the wake of 
             Justice Scalia's passing, one of those clerks--a self-
             identified liberal--wrote the following:

               If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for 
             Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political 
             outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the 
             words on the page took him. More than any one opinion, 
             this will be his lasting contribution to legal thought. 
             Whatever our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to 
             engage on his terms--textual analysis and original 
             meaning. He forced us all to acknowledge that words cannot 
             mean anything we want them to mean; that we have to impose 
             a degree of discipline on our thinking. A discipline I 
             value to this day.

               I first met Justice Scalia in 1996, when I was serving 
             as a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who 
             was a judicial gamechanger in his own right. I had the 
             good fortune of knowing Justice Scalia personally for 20 
             years. He was brilliant, passionate, and full of humor. He 
             adored his wife, Maureen; his 9 children; and his 36 
             grandchildren. He had a zest for life. He relished anchovy 
             pizzas at A.V. Ristorante Italiano, where he would take 
             his law clerks and the clerks of other Justices. Over the 
             decades, Justice Scalia inspired and mentored a generation 
             of conservatives on the bench and in legal academia.
               Any advocate who stood before Justice Scalia, as I was 
             privileged to do nine times, knew to expect withering 
             questions that would cut to the quick of the case. When he 
             was with you--when he believed the law was on your side--
             he was ferociously with you. When he was against you, he 
             would relentlessly expose the flaws in your case.
               President Ronald Reagan could not have picked a better 
             person to exemplify the true, nonpartisan role of a judge. 
             A philosopher-king Justice Scalia was not. Rather, he 
             showed the world, with his trademark wit and impassioned 
             personality, what a legitimate, limited, and principled 
             judiciary would actually look like. An incomparable 
             writer, Justice Scalia's legacy will live on for 
             generations. He wasn't perfect, but he was close. What his 
             supporters--myself included--treasured especially was the 
             rock-solid ground he gave us on which to expect so much 
             more from everyone else. In doing so, he, along with Chief 
             Justice Rehnquist and others, helped spark a revolution on 
             a Court where politics and power had been the only 
             guideposts for decisionmaking for far too long. That, more 
             than anything else, is Justice Scalia's great contribution 
             to the Nation and will be his steadfast legacy.
                                                 Monday, March 14, 2016
               Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to discuss the 
             vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice 
             Antonin Scalia. Those of us who knew the late Justice well 
             are still mourning the loss of a dear friend, and the 
             Nation is feeling the loss of one of the greatest jurists 
             in its history. We will never find a true replacement for 
             Justice Scalia, only a successor to his legacy. ...
                                                Tuesday, March 15, 2016
               Mr. GRASSLEY. ... This fundamental feature of our 
             republic is critical to preserving liberty. The temptation 
             to apply their own views rather than the Constitution has 
             always lurked among the Justices. This led to the Dred 
             Scott decision. It led to striking down many economic 
             regulations early in the last century. And Americans know 
             all too well in recent decades that the Supreme Court has 
             done this regularly. Justice Scalia believed that to 
             ensure objectivity rather than subjectivity in judicial 
             decisionmaking, the Constitution must be read according to 
             its text and its original meaning as understood at the 
             time those words were written.
               The Constitution is law, and it has meaning. Otherwise, 
             what the Court offers is merely politics, masquerading as 
             constitutional law. Justice Scalia wrote that the rule of 
             law is a law of rules. Law is not Justices reading their 
             own policy preferences into the Constitution. It is not a 
             multifactor balancing test untethered to the text. We all 
             know that Justices apply these balancing tests to reach 
             their preferred policy results.
               The Court is not, and should not, be engaged in a 
             continuing Constitutional Convention designed to update 
             our founding document to conform with the Justices' 
             personal policy preference. The Constitution is not a 
             living document. The danger with any Justice who believes 
             they are entitled to ``update'' the Constitution is that 
             they will always update it to conform with their own 
             views. That is not the appropriate role of a Justice. As 
             Justice Scalia put it, ``The-times-they-are-a-changin' is 
             a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.'' ...
                A Justice is to question assumptions and apply rigorous 
             scrutiny to the arguments the parties advance, as did 
             Justice Scalia. ...
                Chief Justice Warren was infamous for asking, ``Is it 
             just? Is it fair?'' without any reference to law, when he 
             voted.
               Justice Scalia's entire tenure on the Court was devoted 
             to ending this misplaced and improper approach. In 
             reality, a Justice is no more entitled to force another 
             American to adhere to his or her own moral views or life 
             experiences than any other ordinary American. ...
                                              Wednesday, March 16, 2016
               Mr. ROUNDS. ... Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who 
             was one of our Nation's strongest defenders of our 
             Constitution, will be difficult. For almost 30 years, with 
             his brilliant legal mind and animated character, he 
             fiercely fought against judicial activism from the bench. 
             He will be greatly missed by not only his family and loved 
             ones but by all Americans who shared his core conservative 
             values and beliefs. ...
               I have determined that my benchmark for the next Supreme 
             Court Justice will be Justice Scalia himself. Scalia's 
             strict interpretation of the Constitution and deference to 
             States' rights set a gold standard by which his 
             replacement should be measured. ...
               In another example, a woman from Estelline wrote saying: 
             ``Hearing of the passing of Justice Scalia was 
             heartbreaking news. ...''
               We owe it to Justice Scalia, our judicial system, and 
             the Constitution to uphold the highest standards when 
             determining our next Supreme Court Justice. ...
                                                 Tuesday, April 5, 2016
               Mr. CORNYN. ... We recall Justice Scalia as somebody who 
             believed that the words of the Constitution mattered 
             greatly, and he served on the Court for almost 30 years. 
             Justice Scalia was what was sometimes called an 
             originalist. In other words, he believed the Court had an 
             obligation to apply the Constitution and the law as 
             written, not based on some substituted value judgment for 
             what perhaps the unelected, lifetime-tenured judges would 
             have preferred in terms of policy. That is not their role. 
             They don't stand for election. It is our role as the 
             policymakers in the political branches who do stand for 
             election--and thus give the American people a chance to 
             voice their pleasure or displeasure, as the case may be, 
             with the direction that we perhaps take the country when 
             it comes to policy. But that is not a role the Supreme 
             Court should play. ...
                                                Tuesday, April 12, 2016
               Mr. CARDIN. ... The late Justice Scalia noted accurately 
             that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires 
             discrimination against women; but there is nothing in the 
             Constitution that protects discrimination based upon 
             gender. We can do a better job with fundamental changes. 
             ...


                                 Proceedings in the
                              House of Representatives
                                             Tuesday, February 23, 2016
               Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last week our Nation lost an 
             incredible man and jurist: Justice Antonin Scalia.
               As a steadfast defender of the rule of law, Antonin 
             Scalia was a pillar of the Supreme Court for nearly 30 
             years. He was a man of God and a champion of religious 
             freedom.
               In a recent speech, Justice Scalia reflected on the role 
             of faith in society. While discussing his time in Rome in 
             the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, he recalled watching 
             President Bush ask God to bless our Nation and a later 
             conversation he had with a jurist from a different country 
             who expressed his own desire for his nation's leader to be 
             able to publicly evoke God's name during a time of 
             national crisis, as it was forbidden.
               This moving speech serves as a reminder of the 
             importance of fighting for our basic liberties that we 
             hold so dearly. Justice Scalia, who consistently 
             demonstrated a deep understanding of what our Founding 
             Fathers intended, was a fierce and loyal leader in this 
             fight.
               It was through his strong adherence to our Constitution, 
             his sharp analytical mind, and his unwillingness to 
             compromise his principles that made him a brilliant 
             jurist; though it was his unreserved vitality and 
             unwavering love for his country that made him a widely 
             admired and beloved friend to his supporters and 
             adversaries alike.
               I had a chance to meet Justice Scalia a couple of 
             different times and hear him and even talk with him and 
             ask him questions. Indeed, I was blessed by that.
               I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to his 
             family. He will certainly be missed by our Nation.

               Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged 
             resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
               The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                                     H. Res. 620
               Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow 
             of the death of the Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate 
             Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
               Resolved, That the House tenders its deep sympathy to 
             the members of the family of the late Associate Justice in 
             their bereavement.
               Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions 
             to the Senate and to the Supreme Court and transmit a copy 
             of the same to the family of the late Associate Justice.
               Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn 
             as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late 
             Associate Justice.

               The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California 
             is recognized for 1 hour.

               Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, we are adopting this 
             resolution today in honor of Justice Antonin Gregory 
             Scalia.
               His passion, his eloquence, his intelligence, and, 
             indeed, his courageous defense of our Constitution was 
             unmatched. He exemplified how principles should be 
             practiced and served as an irreplaceable beacon and 
             guardian of federalism, of the separation of powers, and 
             of liberty throughout his service on the bench.
               Our country has not only lost a great man but a profound 
             man, a principled man, and a good man.
               I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
             previous question on the resolution.
               The previous question was ordered.
               The resolution was agreed to.
               A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

               Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today is our 
             first opportunity to remember and honor the life and 
             legacy of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, with a 
             further tribute tonight by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock 
             of Virginia.
               I am grateful for Justice Scalia's lifetime of service 
             to our country and his dedication to protecting and 
             defending the Constitution. In the nearly three decades he 
             served on the Supreme Court, he was renowned for his 
             brilliant opinion, sharp wit, and engaging debate with 
             attorneys.
               His dedication to a strict interpretation of the 
             Constitution never wavered, and he was beloved by his 
             colleagues on the Court. He promoted the real 
             constitutional intent, for judges to interpret the law, 
             not legislating undermining democracy.
               Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and 
             confirmed unanimously by the Senate, Justice Scalia was 
             the Court's voice for opinions that upheld conservative 
             values, such as the District of Columbia v. Heller, 
             defending the right to bear arms by the Second Amendment.
               Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Maureen, 
             their children, and grandchildren.
               In conclusion, God bless our troops, and may the 
             President, by his actions, never forget September 11 in 
             the global war on terrorism.

               The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poliquin). Under the 
             Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the 
             gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) is recognized 
             for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this Special Order is meant 
             to honor the life and three decades of service of 
             Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin 
             Scalia.
               Justice Scalia was a person of great joy, great 
             intellect, great wit, and great faith. Our Nation suffered 
             a tremendous loss on February 13 with the passing of 
             Justice Antonin Scalia.
               My husband Chip and I, my parents, and our children are 
             deeply saddened by the passing of our friend, our 
             neighbor, and, of course, a legal legend. He was a 
             courageous advocate for the rule of law and the 
             Constitution.
               Justice Scalia and his wife, Maureen, raised an 
             incredible family of 9 children and 36 grandchildren, and 
             we have been so privileged to know and love them.
               Justice Scalia was both a larger-than-life Justice, who 
             leaves a profound legacy in the law, as well as a down-to-
             earth husband, father, grandfather, and absolutely 
             delightful friend who loved his Lord and God, his wife and 
             family, the law, the opera, his country, hunting, and a 
             good laugh.
               We have all heard the stories of his friendship across 
             the ideological spectrum, none more famous than his 
             friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice 
             Scalia explained that if you can't disagree ardently with 
             your colleagues about some issues of law and yet 
             personally still be friends, you should get another job, 
             for Pete's sake.
               Justice Ginsburg explained: ``As annoyed as you might be 
             about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so 
             amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say 
             `I'm glad that he's my friend or he's my colleague.'''
               Justice Scalia was a shining example of fidelity, as he 
             was ever-faithful to his oath to the law, to his family, 
             and to his God.
               He was celebrated by so many in the legal community. He 
             was a revered mentor to the dozens and dozens of clerks 
             who lined the steps of the Supreme Court last Friday in 
             his honor. Every one of them, no doubt, had a story that 
             had profound legal discussions in it but also ended with a 
             good laugh.
               He simply will be irreplaceable and leaves a legacy that 
             will be consequential, discussed, and debated for the 
             ages.
               On the personal front, his life was also a great and 
             consequential life. Justice Scalia married his wife of 
             over 55 years, Maureen, in 1960. They were set up on a 
             blind date. He told one author that Maureen was ``the 
             product of the best decision I ever made.''
               His nine children--nine, how appropriate for a Supreme 
             Court Justice--were split five and four, five boys, four 
             girls. They became lawyers, a priest, a poet, an Army 
             major, and parents themselves of those wonderful 36 
             grandchildren.
               Justice Scalia proudly gave the lion's share of the 
             credit for raising this large brood to the resourceful, 
             talented, and very smart love of his life, Maureen, who, 
             as her son Paul said in the homily, matched him at every 
             step. Justice Scalia said about his children, ``and 
             there's not a dullard in the bunch.''
               His son, Father Paul Scalia, was the celebrant for his 
             father's beautiful funeral mass with the assistance of 
             dozens of priests at the Basilica of the National Shrine 
             of the Immaculate Conception this past Saturday.
               Father Paul began his moving homily saying:

               We are gathered here because of one man, a man known 
             personally to many of us, known only by reputation to many 
             more; a man loved by many, scorned by others; a man known 
             for great controversy and for great compassion. That man, 
             of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.

               Father Paul continued: ``In the past week, many have 
             recounted what Dad did for them. But here today we reflect 
             what God did for Dad, how He blessed him.''
               Father Paul explained how his father understood that the 
             deeper he went into his Catholic faith, the better a 
             citizen and public servant he became. That faith now 
             inspires his children and grandchildren and generations to 
             come of the Scalia family and the so many lives he touched 
             and influenced.
               Justice Scalia also had a rich tenor voice that 
             intimidated many who came before the Court in front of 
             him, but as his son Christopher explained, it was also 
             perfect for reading stories to his grandchildren. His 
             rendition of ``The Night Before Christmas'' was an annual 
             tradition. He also led many sing-alongs at parties, played 
             the piano, and also that singing would go on and on for 
             their long car rides.
               Pictures with his children and grandchildren cover the 
             walls and the end tables and the piano of the Scalia home, 
             and in any picture with one or more of those children or 
             grandchildren or with his beloved Maureen, Justice Scalia 
             would always be beaming whenever he was around his family.
               An only child himself, he loved that he gave his 
             children the gift of many brothers and sisters. No doubt 
             that is a great solace to all of them now, as well as a 
             source of great strength and support for their mother.
               May God bless Justice Antonin Scalia, a good and 
             faithful son, and may God bless his wife, Maureen, and 
             their entire family, and the scores and scores of their 
             friends and his colleagues and the millions more of 
             admirers, and may God bless the country that he so loved.
               Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
             Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
             the Judiciary.

               Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank 
             Congresswoman Comstock for leading this tribute to Justice 
             Scalia.
               The Nation's legal lights faded recently with the loss 
             of the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but 
             they will not be dimmed for long, for Justice Scalia left 
             a legacy of illumination that will continue far beyond his 
             mortal years.
               Although Justice Scalia is no longer with us on Earth, 
             his cogent, witty, and plain-spoken writings will continue 
             to educate law students and good citizens everywhere for 
             centuries to come.
               Justice Scalia was no mere legal technician. He was a 
             deep thinker who had an uncommon knack for crystallizing 
             powerful ideas into trenchant, lasting prose. The journey 
             on which he led his readers was always a joy, always 
             compelling, because Justice Scalia always made clear where 
             the path started.
               He once said: ``More important than your obligation to 
             follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your 
             obligation to form your conscience correctly.'' For 
             Justice Scalia, as with morality, so it was with the law. 
             Justice Scalia always made sure he built his argument on a 
             solid foundation: the Constitution, the supreme law of the 
             land.
               As a strong defender of the rule of law, he was a gentle 
             legal giant. Like all great educators, Justice Scalia was 
             respectful of others, regardless of their differing views. 
             ``I attack ideas,'' he once said. ``I don't attack people. 
             And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if 
             you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day 
             job.'' That is a life lesson for all of us who engage in 
             any debates and the ideas that undergird them.
               In that spirit, Justice Scalia often said: ``My best 
             buddy on the Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has always 
             been,'' and Justice Ginsburg's moving tribute to her own 
             best buddy should reduce every bitter partisan to tears.
               Throughout his life, Justice Scalia correctly inveighed 
             against the notion of a living Constitution, the misguided 
             idea that the Constitution's text and original meaning 
             somehow shifted this way and that with changes in popular 
             attitudes.
               Justice Scalia said:

               That's the argument of constitutional flexibility and it 
             goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 
             years old, and societies change. It has to change with 
             society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle 
             and break. But ... the Constitution is not a living 
             organism; it is a legal document. It says some things and 
             doesn't say other things.

               As a lifetime-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Justice 
             Scalia, like all other lifetime-appointed judges, had the 
             opportunity to effectively alter the meaning of the 
             Constitution if he wanted and could garner the support of 
             four of his colleagues. But like George Washington 
             refusing the crown offered him, Justice Scalia rejected 
             the notion the Supreme Court should impose its own 
             preferred policies on the country through strained 
             constitutional interpretations.
               Instead, Justice Scalia was an ardent defender of 
             democracy, representative democracy. As he said: ``If you 
             think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring 
             you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty 
             is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. 
             You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow 
             citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.''
               Justice Scalia's respect for article I of the 
             Constitution, the article that begins with these words, 
             ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in 
             a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
             Senate and House of Representatives,'' that article, which 
             clearly sets forth the powers of the Congress to 
             legislate, not the executive branch and not the courts, is 
             one of Justice Scalia's greatest legacies.
               As much as Justice Scalia will be remembered as an able 
             critic of the notion of a living Constitution, he will be 
             remembered for his own living dissents, and many majority 
             opinions, which will live forever in the hearts and minds 
             of lovers of the law in America and around the world.
               Thank you, Justice Scalia.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
               I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri 
             (Mrs. Wagner).

               Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and 
             colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia, Barbara 
             Comstock, for organizing this Special Order and for 
             yielding to me.
               Mr. Speaker, Father Paul Scalia said in his beautiful 
             eulogy of his father, Justice Antonin Scalia, on Saturday:

               We give thanks that Jesus brought him to new life in 
             baptism, nourished him with the Eucharist, and healed him 
             in the confessional. God blessed Dad with a deep Catholic 
             faith, the conviction that Christ's presence and power 
             continue in the world today through His body, the Church.

               Mr. Speaker, last week our country lost one of its most 
             outspoken and dedicated defenders of faith and liberty. 
             For nearly 30 years, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia 
             stood as a monument to a faith-based viewpoint on the 
             Constitution that will be sorely missed.
               There is no one in the history of our country who better 
             protected the original intent of our Constitution and 
             upheld the God-given rights of all Americans than Justice 
             Scalia.
               Shown by his fierce dedication to defending our 
             Constitution, from protecting Americans from government 
             intrusion to protecting the rights of the unborn, Justice 
             Scalia was a man of conviction, a man of passion, and a 
             man of integrity.
               His honor and vigilance toward the original meaning of 
             the Constitution and his historic dissents will ring 
             throughout history. Every single ounce of Justice Scalia's 
             heart and soul was devoted to our country, his faith, and 
             his family. His wit, his candor, and his character will be 
             missed on our Nation's highest Court. The legacy of 
             Justice Scalia must never be forgotten.
               Mr. Speaker, I stand committed today to ensure we 
             continue to prioritize faith and freedom in this country, 
             protecting our natural-born rights as citizens of the 
             United States of America. It is simply the right thing to 
             do.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
               I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
             Fortenberry).

               Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
             for yielding.
               When I was informed of the Justice's death, it came 
             across my electronic devices. I texted my wife back home, 
             and I said, ``I just want to cry.''
               I had the extraordinary privilege of getting to know the 
             Justice on a more personal basis. In western Nebraska 
             there is a large outcropping. It is called Chimney Rock. 
             Chimney Rock was the place that marked the halfway point 
             across America. When the settlers crossed the great 
             country, when they got to Chimney Rock, they knew that 
             they were halfway along their journey.
               In the shadow of that rock, just this last December, I 
             was in a duck blind with Justice Scalia who, as we all 
             know, had that as an avocation. When you spend a couple of 
             days in a duck blind with somebody, it is a bonding 
             experience. You get to know them more personally.
               In my own reflections about what Chimney Rock meant to 
             the country, a bridge between the past and the future, I 
             thought it appropriately captured the character, the 
             nature, the wisdom of the great Justice.
               He was a great student of American history, our legal 
             system, a great protector of the Constitution and 
             precedents. He understood how important it was to act in a 
             consistent manner with principle while looking forward and 
             applying that principle in ever-changing circumstances of 
             American life. Because he did so with continuity and with 
             consistency, he was a man of great integrity. His inner 
             voice matched his outer voice.
               When we saw this beautiful outpouring of support at his 
             funeral from people all across the political aisle, I 
             think the common narrative there was a deep respect for 
             this great man.
               Mr. Speaker, when he died, I felt like America lost her 
             grandfather. He was a soaring intellect, had an incisive 
             wit, and had in a certain sense a humble personality. He 
             loved to share a joke. For me to have the privilege of 
             spending some time in a personal intimate setting with him 
             I count as an extraordinary privilege of my time in public 
             service.
               May God rest his soul. May God grant him peace. May God 
             continue to bless the United States of America and give us 
             all the strength to continue to think through how we are 
             going to elevate and form the next generation of Americans 
             who can apply themselves in such an extraordinary, 
             sacrificial way as Justice Scalia did.
               I remember one other comment I wanted to leave with you. 
             I remember when the Justice asked me, ``How many children 
             do you have?'' You beautifully talked about how he was so 
             devoted to his family and faith. He asked me, knowing that 
             I knew he had nine, how many children I had. I said, ``I 
             have five.''
               He paused. He said, ``Respectable.''
               That was it.
               I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia for her beautiful 
             remarks and for giving me this moment to honor this great 
             American.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for his lovely 
             remarks. Five is a good start, right, getting to that 
             nine.
               I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

               Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
             gentlewoman for yielding. I especially thank her for 
             arranging this Special Order tonight in memory of Justice 
             Scalia, who was truly a legal giant. He was a man who 
             surpassed all of the intellects that I have been aware of 
             in my lifetime. Certainly no one in the legal profession 
             has demonstrated more of a love for the law, more respect 
             for the law, and more respect for the original intent of 
             the Constitution.
               Now, I have nowhere near the personal contact with 
             Justice Scalia that the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. 
             Comstock) did or the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
             Fortenberry). I did meet him on a number of occasions. I 
             had the opportunity to speak with him. Usually our 
             conversations consisted of talking about the fact that we 
             lived in working class neighborhoods in Queens. We grew up 
             about a mile apart from each other. We both attended 
             Jesuit high schools. That is about where the comparison 
             ended as far as the Jesuit high schools, because he was 
             valedictorian and I was far from it. He was a person who 
             had the strength of somebody from the neighborhood, but he 
             had the scholar's intellect.
               He had an intellect that went beyond tremendous 
             intelligence. It was an intellect that was shaped and 
             framed by his deep religious faith and a belief in 
             undiminished, lasting, and immutable principles. That is 
             what reflected throughout his opinions. Yet he never let 
             his own feelings or prejudices influence his thinking.
               That was certainly proven in the flag burning case. If 
             there is anyone who loved his country and would oppose the 
             concept of the act of flag burning, it was Justice Scalia. 
             Yet he upheld the act as an expression of free speech, as 
             much as it pained him.
               Something that many of us in politics and government 
             have a hard time doing is following the letter of the law, 
             following the intent of the law, and following the meaning 
             of the law. Somehow, we like to put in our own feelings 
             and beliefs. The fact is Justice Scalia told us that there 
             is a higher principle than that.
               Also he had such a respect for language. There were no 
             easy words thrown about. There were no escape clauses or 
             phrases. There was an intent and purpose and meaning to 
             everything that he did. To read his opinions, whether in 
             the majority--and knowing that he was in the majority made 
             us feel much better--or in his dissents, you realized, 
             again, how determined he was, how forceful he was, and how 
             committed he was to arriving at the correct decision--one 
             which, again, followed the original intent of the 
             Constitution.
               There were several references by Barbara Comstock to his 
             funeral service on Saturday. Again, it was an expression 
             by so many people of their love and respect for such an 
             outstanding human being, a person whom I doubt we will 
             ever see the likes of again--certainly, in our lifetimes.
               He was a giant of the law. He was a giant of his faith. 
             He was a giant of his country. I am proud to join with all 
             of my colleagues tonight--especially Barbara Comstock, who 
             arranged this Special Order--in honoring the memory of 
             Justice Scalia and hoping that that memory lives forward 
             to carry out his unmatched love for the law, love for his 
             country, and love for his family and his religion.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman from New York for 
             his kind words and for bringing a New York flavor here to 
             such a wonderful man.
               I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
             Walker).

               Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
             Virginia for taking the initiative to honor such a great 
             man.
               In 1986, Antonin Scalia was nominated. I was a junior in 
             high school. I am not sure it really resonated to me at 
             the time what the next 30 years would entail. I believe it 
             is safe to say that not only is he one of the strongest 
             conservative voices of our day, but he could be of all 
             time.
               I think of his life and I think of the example that he 
             left for all of us, whether in politics or not. It is one 
             thing to be conservative; it is another thing to be 
             effective. He showed with his life that he did not have to 
             compromise his principles or his values to be effective.
               When I look at his peers around him, Justice Ginsburg 
             many times talked about the friendship and the 
             relationship she had with him. It was genuine. He took 
             Justice Kagan hunting. He taught her how to hunt. She 
             killed her first big deer with Justice Scalia at her side. 
             What does that tell me? It tells me something that we need 
             to remember: you can connect with people, you can hold 
             your values, but you can have a genuine love for your 
             fellow man.
               There is much to be said about Antonin Scalia's faith. 
             Obviously, he lived it, but he lived it in a way that set 
             an example for all of us. Yes, we get frustrated. It is OK 
             to be angry--sometimes vertically, but never 
             horizontally--with our coworkers, our friends, our 
             neighbors, and our family.
               He set the mark. He set it high. He was someone who 
             could work in, arguably, the toughest environment in the 
             world, yet still gain the respect of his political 
             archrivals. For that, I thank him. Tonight, I honor him 
             for showing us how to be both conservative and effective.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
               I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

               Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Comstock 
             for organizing this tonight.
               I just have a quick personal story, Mr. Speaker.
               Justice Scalia's daughter, Ann, lives in my 
             neighborhood. I served in the State legislature, and I 
             learned that this woman whose last name, obviously, was no 
             longer Scalia, was the daughter of Justice Scalia. So I 
             called her up, and I said, ``If your dad is ever in town, 
             I would love to meet him.''
               I was that guy, Mr. Speaker, who made that call, and she 
             was very gracious.
               Sometime later, she called me up and said, ``Peter, my 
             dad is coming in. Why don't you and your family stop by.''
               So the Roskams ran around the corner. My wife, 
             Elizabeth, myself, and my four children, who were young at 
             the time, went over and spent a few minutes on a Sunday 
             afternoon with Justice Scalia. He was very magnanimous and 
             very gracious in his blue jeans and sweatshirt, getting up 
             off the couch, but extending himself to us.
               A couple of years later, I won a seat in the U.S. House. 
             I thought: Well, I have got a little bit of a connection. 
             I will reach out and call him and try to make a courtesy 
             call.
               I made some contact with his chambers and his staff and 
             they said, ``Well, would you like to come over and listen 
             to an argument?''
               As a new Member of Congress, I said, ``I would love to 
             go over.''
               So, over I went and listened to an argument in the 
             Supreme Court. It was very dramatic, as you know. I was 
             walking out feeling a little bit let down because I 
             actually wanted to say hello to Justice Scalia. But not to 
             be disappointed, his staff said, ``Come on with us.''
               So I went up to his office, and there in his chambers he 
             set out a lunch. The two of us had lunch together.
               Now, who I was having lunch with was not lost on me. The 
             magnitude, the scale, the capacity of this man and his 
             ability to influence things on a grand scale was not lost 
             on me. Yet he was really willing to spend some time with 
             me that day.
               I have got to tell you one other quick story.
               A few years ago, I invited him to dinner. I said, 
             ``Justice Scalia, a number of my colleagues would love to 
             have dinner with you. Would you be willing to come out?''
               Of course, he did.
               I told my wife afterward: ``This guy is so interesting 
             and so charming, if he had a radio show, you would listen 
             to it. You would set your timer so that you could listen 
             to him.''
               He was so interesting, so clever, and so quick and 
             willing to take all kinds of questions and all kinds of 
             debate and so forth.
               I just want to close by saying this. There are many 
             times when we feel overwhelmed by events that are before 
             us in our public life. There are many times when our 
             constituents feel overwhelmed and they get this sense of: 
             Is there anybody out there who has got some level of 
             judgment and wisdom and capacity here? Are there any 
             examples and role models?
               The answer is: Justice Scalia. He is an example. He is 
             an example that we are all the beneficiaries of: his clear 
             mind; his capacity to disagree without being disagreeable; 
             his capacity to build people up; his capacity to 
             articulate a world view; his capacity to be a faithful and 
             vocal follower of his savior, Jesus, and not be defensive 
             about it; and to basically invite people along to 
             celebrate and to participate in this great gift, which is 
             our democracy.
               Even in these short interactions that I had with him, 
             you always got the sense--or, I did--that he got the joke. 
             In other words, there was a twinkle in his eye.
               This is a democracy and we have got roles to play. His 
             role on the Court was to do his thing. Our role, Mr. 
             Speaker, is to legislate with that same sense of 
             commitment and character and tenacity and clarity that 
             Justice Scalia brought to his role on the judiciary.
               So, I want to honor Justice Scalia. I want to honor his 
             wife, Mrs. Scalia. I want to honor his children and 
             grandchildren. I thank them, because it is a sacrifice for 
             them to have someone of that caliber and that capacity in 
             that role for our country. It is not a burden that is 
             easy, but they have been willing to bear that burden. Our 
             country is better off for it.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman for those lovely 
             memories.
               In the outpouring that we saw in his passing, one of the 
             pictures that I saw from a neighbor was a picture of 
             Justice Scalia, who was probably coming home from a long 
             day at work, and some children on our street had a 
             lemonade stand. He had stopped and gotten out there to 
             support those little entrepreneurs. The mom came out and 
             took a picture of them. He was there beaming with those 
             kids, in his suit, all dressed up, and these little kids 
             were there with their lemonade stand and so proud.
               He really did take the time that my friend, Mr. Roskam, 
             spoke about and really just engaged and loved life so 
             much.
               I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

               Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my colleague from Virginia for 
             organizing this fitting tribute to somebody who really did 
             make a difference.
               Very few people who serve not only in the judiciary, but 
             really at any level of government, leave the lasting mark 
             that Antonin Scalia did. He will join the likes of John 
             Marshall, Joseph Story, and Robert Jackson as one of the 
             all-time greats in American law.
               I think of all the great things you can say about him. 
             He was sharp, he was witty, and he wrote brilliantly. I 
             think the reason why he is a titan of modern American law 
             is because he insisted on discharging the judicial duty in 
             a way that strengthened our overall constitutional order.
               He insisted on textualism when you are interpreting 
             statutes. He had an originalist outlook when you are 
             talking about the constitutional interpretation. Those 
             frames of reference really vindicated the separation of 
             powers.
               The judicial power under article III is to decide cases 
             and controversy. So you have cases before you that you 
             have got to decide. It is not to go out and be a roving 
             superlegislature. It is not to impose your philosophy on 
             society. You decide cases.
               So, once judges free their decisionmaking from the 
             objective meaning of the law in the Constitution, they are 
             taking away power belonging to the American people that 
             should be exercised through their Representatives. Justice 
             Scalia always understood that. He was always insistent 
             that judges have an objective standard when they are 
             discharging their duty.
               When you talk about textualism, you read the statute for 
             what it says. You don't correct the statute. You don't 
             amend the statute. You don't find subjective views of some 
             random legislature who happened to say something in a 
             committee hearing. You actually apply the words as 
             written. That is the judicial task.
               When you do that, you are basically vindicating the 
             power of the Congress and of the people's elected 
             Representatives, because they are the ones who wrote the 
             law. If the courts depart from that, then they are 
             departing from what the elected Representatives did.
               I am sure he saw countless statutes that were asinine as 
             a matter of policy, but he said, ``That is not my job to 
             correct that.'' So he is absolutely vindicating the 
             separation of powers in the constitutional order.
               The same thing with constitutional interpretation. 
             Before Justice Scalia took the bench, this was a 
             freewheeling thing. Judges would say: Society matures and 
             it is up to us to, effectively, update the meaning of the 
             Constitution.
               That means you have five lawyers--unelected, 
             unaccountable--that serve as an effective roving 
             constitutional convention that can change the Constitution 
             based on one case that happens to come in front of them.
               That was something that Justice Scalia thought was 
             totally outside the bounds of the proper judicial role. He 
             said the Constitution has a fixed, enduring meaning, and 
             it is our job as judges to ascertain that meaning and 
             apply it to the cases and controversies before us.
               So, if you look at a figure that has had more impact on 
             how we think about the law and the Constitution over the 
             last 50 years, you are not going to find one that 
             surpasses Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a great American 
             in every respect. He fought the good fight. He finished 
             the race. He kept the faith. What a good guy. What a life.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I yield to the gentleman from 
             Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

               Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
             Virginia, for organizing this Special Order on behalf of 
             this remarkable American.
               On February 13 of this year, our country lost a giant. 
             His legacy will never fade. Justice Scalia influenced 
             countless jurists, attorneys, law students, and everyday 
             Americans. My thoughts and prayers have been with his 
             wife, Maureen, Father Paul, and the entire Scalia family 
             since the passing of this outstanding American statesman.
               Regardless of whether one agreed with his opinions on 
             the Supreme Court, this man's consistent integrity and 
             admirable character cannot be denied. In both word and 
             action, he was a man of the strongest character and 
             deepest virtue.
               This was evident in the commencement address he gave to 
             the graduating class of the College of William & Mary in 
             1996, when he said:

               Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and 
             physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought 
             and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. 
             The only thing in the world that is not for sale is 
             character.

               The way he lived out the virtues of integrity and 
             humility did not go unnoticed.
               Several weeks ago, we here in Washington had the 
             opportunity to go to the National Prayer Breakfast, which 
             attracted Members of Congress, the President, Senators, 
             Ambassadors, people from all over the world, and we were 
             treated with an appearance by famed tenor Andrea Bocelli.
               I think that Justice Scalia would have enjoyed his 
             appearance and his appreciation for opera.
               In addition to his wonderful renditions of ``Panis 
             Angelicus,'' which, again would have been another treat 
             for Justice Scalia, and ``Amazing Grace,'' Mr. Bocelli 
             lamented the dark shadow that war casts on the world and 
             expressed concern for its victims, identifying war as a 
             major problem in our world today.
               But then it was interesting. Mr. Bocelli stated: ``There 
             is that small, hateful word, `hubris,' already known in 
             antiquity.'' The ancient Greeks used it to define pride 
             and the arrogance it entails.
               Bocelli's use of the word ``hubris'' was compelling in 
             that he spoke it in the center of power here in the United 
             States.
               That word conjures a theme that we have seen in Justice 
             Scalia's work. Justice Scalia went about his task of 
             considering significant constitutional and legal issues of 
             the day with a profound and seldom seen humility about the 
             role of courts in our country.
               They are not there to impose their own beliefs on the 
             people, but to adjudicate competing claims in the context 
             of a Constitution that has enduring meaning.
               To interpret the law in any other way otherwise 
             aggrandizes power to a select few, a power that was never 
             intended by the Founders. This humility of position that 
             Justice Scalia had I believe will be a lasting legacy.
               Regardless of whether one agrees with Justice Scalia 
             from a policy perspective, his writings reflect a profound 
             respect for an understanding of our system of government 
             and an unparalleled respect for an interpretation of the 
             Constitution grounded in text and in history. For this our 
             Nation should be forever grateful.
               May he rest in peace.

               Mrs. COMSTOCK. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of 
             my colleagues for their comments.
               Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity for 
             all of our colleagues to join us in celebrating the life 
             of this great man, Justice Scalia, who so many of us were 
             privileged to know and count as a friend.
               For anyone who would like to view the beautiful mass of 
             Christian burial for Justice Scalia that was presided over 
             by his son, Father Paul Scalia, who gave a beautiful 
             homily, that can be found on C-SPAN. I appreciate that 
             that was covered.
               I also, again, appreciate this opportunity to celebrate 
             this beautiful life, this family.
               I yield back the balance of my time.

               Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in tribute to 
             one of the greatest jurists in this Nation's history. 
             Justice Antonin Scalia had a preeminent mind following an 
             excellent education. He has a beautiful family and has 
             already been very sorely missed.
               I thought it might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to get a 
             sense of the man and how profoundly concerned he was with 
             the place in which this country finds itself after world 
             wars, after depressions, after all kinds of threats: a 
             massive civil war in the 1860s, all kinds of things that 
             have threatened this Nation, even the War of 1812 during 
             which this Capitol was set on fire.
               There were all of these threats; yet, at this time in 
             which we live, he could see and he tried to sound the 
             warning alarms for what the majority of the Supreme Court 
             was doing to this country.
               It seemed to be encapsulated rather well back in the 
             June 12, 2008, decision in the case of Boumediene v. 
             George W. Bush, President of the United States, combined 
             with another case.
               The decision of the majority of the Court, as Justice 
             Scalia pointed out, was so totally inconsistent with the 
             majority's own majority opinion in a prior case regarding 
             people who were captured on the battlefield and who were 
             clearly at war with the United States.
               Throughout the history of warfare at least among 
             civilized nations during the period of warfare, the 
             civilized thing to do was to hold those who were at war 
             with you until such time as the groups they represent, 
             they come from, declare they are no longer at war with 
             you.
               Then they can be released unless they have committed 
             some heinous crime for which they should account beyond 
             that of being part of the war against the Nation.
               The Supreme Court majority had previously said basically 
             that, of course, the Constitution gives the Congress the 
             power to create tribunals, to create courts.
               As my former constitutional law professor said, there is 
             only one Court in the whole country's Federal system that 
             owes its creation to the U.S. Constitution, and that is 
             the U.S. Supreme Court. All other Federal courts, 
             tribunals, owe their existences and their jurisdictions to 
             the U.S. Congress.
               So the majority Court had previously said, in effect, 
             that Congress could, in cases where enemy combatants are 
             seized on the battlefield, hold them without right of writ 
             of habeas corpus, because that has basically been the 
             history of civilized warfare.
               Obviously, in uncivilized warfare, people were taken, 
             abused, tortured, made slaves. That has happened 
             throughout the history of mankind. But for nations that 
             were civilized, you simply held them, hopefully, in 
             humanitarian conditions.
               In the Boumediene case, Justice Scalia started his 
             dissent by writing:

               I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to 
             the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. 
             Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it 
             appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous 
             consequences of what the Court has done today.

               Justice Scalia went on:

               America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy 
             began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 
             at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers 
             in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and 
             Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen.
               On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to 
             American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New 
             York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and 40 
             in Pennsylvania.
               It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; 
             one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded 
             Washington or board a plane anywhere in the country to 
             know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces 
             are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and 
             Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.
               The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays 
             upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war 
             harder on us.

               What comes next is, perhaps, one of the most profound 
             statements that any Justice on the Supreme Court ever put 
             in writing, but he was right. Being right in his 
             discernment of the Supreme Court's decision, he knew he 
             needed to put this next sentence in print.
               So, in talking about the majority opinion, Justice 
             Scalia wrote this: ``It will almost certainly cause more 
             Americans to be killed.''
               He wrote: ``That consequence would be tolerable if 
             necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital 
             to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's 
             blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the 
             decision today. The President relied on our settled 
             precedent in Johnson vs. Eisentrager''--this was back in 
             1950--``when he established the prison at Guantanamo Bay 
             for enemy aliens. Citing that case, the President's Office 
             of Legal Counsel advised him `that the great weight of 
             legal authority indicates that a federal district court 
             could not properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an 
             alien detained at Guantanamo Bay.'''
               Further down, the Justice writes:

               In the short term, however, the decision is devastating. 
             At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from 
             Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.
               But others have succeeded in carrying on their 
             atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a 
             detainee released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the 
             kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was 
             later shot to death when used as a human shield against 
             Pakistani commandos.
               Another former detainee promptly resumed his post as a 
             senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations 
             engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Still another murdered 
             an Afghan judge. It was reported only last month that a 
             released detainee carried out a suicide bombing against 
             Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq.
               Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible 
             difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy 
             combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the 
             environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence 
             collection.

               Justice Scalia goes on:

               During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, 
             federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted 
             coconspirators to the ``Blind Sheikh's'' defense lawyers; 
             that information was in the hands of Osama Bin Laden 
             within two weeks.

               Justice Scalia went on to write page after page, 
             explaining the perils that the overzealous and 
             underthinking majority of the Court had imposed on the 
             United States, on our military.
               Justice Scalia made clear, when it comes to war, the 
             decision that the majority made was to basically tell our 
             military: Instead of protecting yourselves and protecting 
             your brothers and sisters in arms, we are going to require 
             you to go out there, gather up DNA evidence, get blood 
             evidence, maybe just drive a forensic wagon out there onto 
             the field of battle. Start gathering evidence because some 
             moronic person in a palace in Washington--``palace'' being 
             what some of the Justices who first went through the new 
             Supreme Court Building said about it back in 1935, that 
             palace in which they reside--has said that, in a time of 
             war, we have lost our mind in America, and we are going to 
             now start putting our military at risk of their very lives 
             so they can go gather up evidence to satisfy some bloated 
             judge in a palace in Washington.
               That is why he made the profound statement that he did 
             in this dissent.
               His words will almost certainly cause more Americans to 
             be killed. That is extraordinary.
               Dear Justice Scalia finished the dissenting opinion by 
             saying:

               Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that 
             goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the 
             Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed 
             separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable 
             ``functional'' test for the extraterritorial reach of 
             habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial 
             reach of other constitutional protections as well). It 
             blatantly misdescribes important precedents, most 
             conspicuously Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court in 
             Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as 
             old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into 
             the detention of aliens abroad absent statutory 
             authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military 
             commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian 
             court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the 
             future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and 
             every enemy prisoner.
               The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done 
             today. I dissent.

               What a magnificent man. What a brilliant man with 
             extraordinary common sense.
               So, Mr. Speaker, my staff helped me. We have all been 
             picking out favorite quotes that Justice Scalia has 
             provided, both in written opinion and in speeches.
               One of Justice Scalia's statements was: ``Never 
             compromise your principles, unless, of course, your 
             principles are Adolph Hitler's, in which case you would be 
             well-advised to compromise them as much as you can.''
               Another statement by Justice Scalia was: ``More 
             important than your obligation to follow your conscience, 
             or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your 
             conscience correctly.''
               Justice Scalia said:

               You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No 
             problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it 
             the way most rights are created in a democratic society. 
             Pass a law. And that law, unlike a constitutional right to 
             abortion created by a court, can compromise.

               Justice Scalia said, ``A Constitution is not meant to 
             facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make 
             it difficult to change.''
               Brilliant statement.
               Some think the Constitution is a living, breathing 
             document. I have discussed this over at the Supreme Court 
             palace with him, and I have discussed it with him at 
             lunches, breakfasts.
               There are a handful of special privileges that I count 
             myself blessed to have been able to enjoy, and one of 
             those handful has been time spent with Justice Scalia. He 
             had an incredible sense of humor. He could crack me up. 
             Most of the time, he meant to. Sometimes his sarcasm was 
             just too humorous not to laugh. He attacked himself with 
             self-effacing humor.
               He said this: ``I attack ideas. I don't attack people. 
             And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if 
             you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day 
             job.''
               He was a funny man, but a brilliant man. God blessed 
             that man with wisdom.
               Justice Scalia said:

               I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love 
             to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It 
             may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may 
             well be that I'm something of a contrarian.

               He said, ``Well, we didn't set out to have nine 
             children''--talking about his beautiful family. He said, 
             ``We're just old-fashioned Catholics, you know.''
               Justice Scalia said, ``I think Thomas Jefferson would 
             have said the more speech, the better. That's what the 
             First Amendment is all about.''
               Today I see around our college campuses conservatives 
             like me are often shunned. I am grateful to have been 
             invited to speak at Oxford in England and at Cambridge. 
             But it is amazing that places like my conservative Texas 
             A&M, there are students there--much fewer there, but all 
             over the country at what are supposed to be enlightened 
             universities--that don't want to hear any view different 
             from their own.
               When I was at A&M, I mean, I helped host Ralph Nader. I 
             didn't agree with him on much, but I loved the exchange 
             with him, the thoughts that went back and forth. He was a 
             very intriguing man. We weren't afraid of discussions with 
             liberals.
               It is one of the things I loved about Justice Scalia. He 
             was so brilliant, so grounded. His faith was so strongly 
             standing on God's Word, the Bible. He knew who he was. He 
             knew whose he was, and he knew whose were his, and he 
             loved his family dearly.
               Justice Scalia said:

               Undoubtedly, some think that the Second Amendment is 
             outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride 
             of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide 
             personal security, and where gun violence is a serious 
             problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not 
             debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to 
             pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

               It was absolutely a great dissent. Pointing out the 
             hypocrisy, the flawed thinking, the incredible poor 
             quality of the writing in the majority opinion in the 
             Obamacare decision, Justice Scalia said:

               This Court, however, concludes that this limitation 
             would prevent the rest of the act from working as well as 
             hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits 
             available everywhere. We should start calling this law 
             SCOTUSCare instead of Obamacare.

               The Supreme Court of the United States care, how about 
             that?
               He went on to say:

               Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, 
             the government should lose this case. But normal rules of 
             interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding 
             principle of this Court: The Affordable Care Act must be 
             saved.

               He goes on. It says:

               If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard 
             on some minority and they think it's terribly unfair, it 
             doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into this 
             complex system. Americans should appreciate that; they 
             should learn to love the gridlock. It's there so the 
             legislation that does get out is good legislation.

               Mr. Speaker, it brings to mind a discussion I heard him 
             have with some people from my district, some senior 
             citizens that were coming to Washington, 50 or 60. They 
             had asked me, ``They say you are friends with Justice 
             Scalia. Do you think we could meet him?''
               I felt comfortable enough to call him. He said, ``Sure. 
             Bring them.''
               So we worked it out, brought them through the side 
             entrance, came into a meeting room. They were all seated 
             there when Justice Scalia came walking in. He leaned up 
             against the table in front of them, and they were kind of 
             in awe because they knew how brilliant Justice Scalia was.
               He said, ``Well, you wanted to meet me. Here I am. What 
             questions have you got?''
               It kind of took the group aback, so people were 
             struggling to try to come up with a question. Finally, one 
             of them said, ``Well, Justice Scalia, wouldn't you say 
             that we are the freest Nation in the history of the world 
             because we have the best Bill of Rights?''
               In typical Scalia style, he said, ``Oh, gosh, no. The 
             Soviet Union had a much better bill of rights than we have 
             got. It guaranteed a lot more freedoms than we have.''
               I've forgotten, but in college I made an A on a paper 
             that discussed the Soviet constitution and the bill of 
             rights. He was right. That old Soviet bill of rights 
             guaranteed all kinds of rights, but it didn't protect 
             them.
               He went on to say--and I am not quoting exactly--but the 
             gist of what he had to say is, now, the reason America is 
             the most free Nation in the history of the world is 
             because the Founders didn't trust the government, so they 
             made it as difficult as they could to pass a law. It 
             wasn't enough to have one House; they wanted two Houses, 
             and not like England where one of them doesn't have all 
             that much authority. They wanted two Houses where either 
             one of them could stop a law from being passed. So even if 
             one House were successful in finally getting a majority of 
             people to agree on a law, then the other House would have 
             to agree, and they could stop it completely in its tracks.
               That wasn't good enough. They wanted another check and 
             balance, another way to stop law. They wanted to create 
             gridlock. So they said: You know what? We don't want a 
             parliamentarian system where the legislators elect a prime 
             minister. No. We want an Executive elected totally 
             different from the legislature. So we will have him 
             elected in a whole different way, and then he can stop any 
             law they may try to pass. And that is not good enough. 
             Let's create another branch, the judiciary branch, and 
             then they can nix anything that is passed.
               No, we are the most free Nation in history because the 
             Founders didn't trust government and they made it as hard 
             as possible to pass laws.
               Justice Scalia said in one of his dissents, ``I have 
             exceeded the speed limit on occasion.''
               He said, ``A man who has no enemies is probably not a 
             very good man.'' ...
               He said:

               If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you 
             have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always 
             going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them 
             all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.

               I've experienced that myself. There were times I 
             disagreed with the law, but it was constitutionally made 
             and passed, and I followed the law as a judge and chief 
             justice. That is exactly what he did.
               In a dissent in 1996, Justice Scalia said, ``The Court 
             must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, 
             it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not 
             recognize.''
               Ten years later, in 2006, he said:

               So the question comes up, is there a constitutional 
             right to have homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for 
             me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when 
             the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to 
             homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 
             200 years in every State. Easy question.

               He made those statements in remarks at the University of 
             Fribourg, Switzerland, back in 2006.
               In 2009 he said, ``The Court today continues its 
             quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all 
             imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest 
             cannot succeed.''
               He also said:

               This case, involving legal requirements of the content 
             and labeling of meat products such as frankfurters affords 
             a rare opportunity to explore simultaneously both parts of 
             Bismarck's aphorism that ``no man should see how laws or 
             sausages are made.''

               He said, ``God has been very good to us. One of the 
             reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him 
             honor.''
               Certainly, Justice Scalia did God honor.
               A lot of people don't realize what a tenderhearted man 
             he was as well. After the horrendous murder of Justice 
             Michael Luttig's father and the assault and attempted 
             murder of his mother in their own garage, two streets over 
             from my house, the family did not want to call Michael and 
             describe the horrors that had been inflicted on his father 
             and mother.
               In the middle of the night, Justice Scalia was in bed. 
             Justice Scalia got called, and he went out to Michael 
             Luttig, Judge Luttig's house, and let him know in the wee 
             hours of the morning that his father had been killed. 
             Justice Scalia, for whom Judge Luttig had clerked, knew 
             Michael Luttig loved him. He put on his warmup suit and 
             went out in the middle of the night many miles away 
             because he cared.
               As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I thought about the words of 
             John Quincy Adams in the Amistad case. He didn't think he 
             had won the case. He was finishing. He was afraid he had 
             not done an adequate job defending these Africans who 
             should be free and should be free to go where they wanted 
             without chains, without bondage.
               So he finished his argument by saying, and this is John 
             Quincy Adams, 1841, in the Supreme Court:

               As I cast my eyes along those seats of honor and public 
             trust, now occupied by you, they seek in vain for one of 
             those honored and honorable persons whose indulgence 
             listened then to my voice. Marshall, Cushing, Chase, 
             Washington, Johnson, Livingston, Todd--where are they? 
             Where is that eloquent statesman and learned lawyer who 
             was my associate counsel in the management of that cause, 
             Robert Goodloe Harper? Where is that brilliant luminary, 
             so long the pride of Maryland and of the American Bar, 
             then my opposing counsel, Luther Martin? Where is the 
             excellent clerk of that day, whose name has been inscribed 
             on the shores of Africa, as a monument of his abhorrence 
             of the African slave trade Elias B. Caldwell? Where is the 
             marshal? Where are the criers of the Court? Alas, where is 
             one of the very judges of the Court, arbiters of life and 
             death, before whom I commenced the anxious argument, even 
             now prematurely closed? Where are they all? Gone. Gone. 
             All gone. Gone from the services which, in their day and 
             generation, they faithfully rendered to their country. I 
             humbly hope, and fondly trust, that they have gone to 
             receive the rewards of blessedness on high.


               In taking, then, his final leave of the bar there at the 
             Supreme Court, John Quincy Adams said he hoped that every 
             member of the Supreme Court may go to his final account 
             with as little of earthly frailty to answer for as those 
             illustrious dead.
               He said:


               That you may, every one, after the close of a long and 
             virtuous career in this world, be received at the portals 
             of the next with the approving sentence: ``Well done, good 
             and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy 
             Lord.''


               Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever that Justice 
             Antonin Scalia, my friend, our friend, the luminary of the 
             Supreme Court, heard those words days ago: ``Well done, 
             good and faithful servant.''
               Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


               Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and in 
             sorrow of the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was 
             truly larger than life. He will go down in history as one 
             of America's greatest Supreme Court Justices. He was a 
             champion for freedom and the Constitution, a great family 
             man and a devout man of faith. I submit this poem penned 
             in his honor by Albert Carey Caswell.


             Larger,
             larger than life
             America's son,
             oh so very bright
             Antonin,
             for all of America you held the night
             As you stood with all of our best in America's light
             Same as all of our Forefathers in sight
             Who shone in liberty's sheen so very bright
             Of something which gleams into the night
             Of this our most beloved document seen of this sight
             Who'd the United States Constitution recite
             Which built this country,
             not out of luck or by circumstance
             But by the bedrock upon which all of us have advanced
             The very foundation upon which all of our freedoms so 
               stand
             Of such consequence through the decades which commands
             To weather all of the storms,
             and battle all of tyranny in all of its forms
             For no other Nation in this entire world,
             has had such freedoms upon its citizens unfurled
             For you Justice Scalia,
             were but the guardian for all of our children and their 
               future world
             And even your detractors knew you were larger than life,
             while upon you their arguments they hurled
             As you stood there with sword in hand
             With your pen, your wit, your charm, and your mind to take 
               command
             All so freedom could stand
             For you had the gift,
             of all of your opponents respect and love as so was this
             If only we had more men like you in this world,
             who against such divisiveness could rise above like a 
               pearl,
             then we'd have such the bliss
             And your greatest love of all,
             was that of your magnificent family we saw
             Of what you left behind,
             to spread out through time
             Your seeds of love to remind,
             that the gift of love and life are oh so very divine
             And just like our Forefathers you were a true man of God
             For the freedom to worship they stepped upon this very sod
             No other country across the world,
             has so been formed out of God
             And your two greatest reads,
             The Bible and The Constitution brought to your soul such 
               glee
             To arm you in the battle for all you would need
             Now Marshall and all of the greats,
             have another equal for history to so contemplate
             Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant you were my son in so many 
               ways
             Your written opinions and quest for justice,
             disarmed all of those arguments and held them at bay
             Indeed it's a very sad day
             For America's loss,
             comes at such a high cost
             Because such men like you Antonin are larger than life,
             and keep all of our freedom's burning bright
             As our world just got a little bit darker this night
             We pray that America too will follow your light
             Supreme,
             at the top,
             as into the future upon lips of lawyers and law students,
             your name shall never stop
             Rest
             Rest my son
             Rise up to heaven Antonin where you so belong
             As an Angel in The Army of our Lord so very strong
             To watch over us you American song
             And larger than life,
             and your memory will ever live on
             God Bless you America's son,
             as you did her the day you were born
             Amen

               Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now 
             adjourn.
               The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 
             19 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to 
             House Resolution 620, the House adjourned until tomorrow, 
             Wednesday, February 24, 2016, at 10 a.m., for morning-hour 
             debate, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the 
             late Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the 
             Supreme Court of the United States of America.


                                           Wednesday, February 24, 2016
               Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, ten days ago, on February 
             13, 2016, the Nation was saddened to learn of the death of 
             Justice Antonin Scalia, the senior Associate Justice of 
             the Supreme Court.
               Justice Scalia, who loved the Court, served it ably for 
             nearly 30 years and was involved in some of the most 
             consequential cases in history. ...
               In fact, Justice Scalia would say to anyone claiming 
             otherwise, ``Leges posteriores priores contrarias 
             abrogant,'' which is Latin for the canon of judicial 
             interpretation that ``the last expression of the people 
             prevails.'' ...


                                              Friday, February 26, 2016
               Mr. GOHMERT. ... It sometimes shocks people that a 
             conservative like me can have some very liberal friends, 
             just like the great Antonin Scalia was very close friends 
             with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They had totally different 
             views. He believed in upholding the letter of the law of 
             the Constitution and she didn't, but they were friends.


                                              Monday, February 29, 2016
               Mr. JEFFRIES. ... We know that Justice Antonin Scalia 
             has moved on after a long and distinguished career. Though 
             I disagree with almost every single judicial opinion that 
             he has issued, he served this Nation well.


               Mr. JEFFRIES. ... What I haven't been able to understand 
             is this Justice who I have disagreed with on many issues. 
             Although he was strong--Justice Scalia--on the privacy 
             rights of the American people, the Fourth Amendment--he 
             was concerned about the criminalization of politics, these 
             are areas where there is some common ground.
               And certainly he was a giant in terms of legal thought. 
             ...
                                                 Tuesday, March 1, 2016
               Ms. JACKSON LEE. ... Justice Scalia may have had many 
             qualities but none endeared him more to his admirers on 
             that debate stage and across the country than his 
             professed devotion to the rule of law, his exaltation of 
             the doctrine of ``original intent,'' and his insistence 
             that the meaning of the Constitution is to be divined only 
             from the strictest reading of the text. ...
                                               Wednesday, March 2, 2016
               Ms. SPEIER. ... It is important to quote what the late 
             Justice Scalia said about discrimination against women. He 
             was a constitutional expert, an originalist, and he said 
             the following: ``Certainly the Constitution does not 
             require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue 
             is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''
               When I read that quotation by Justice Scalia--may he 
             rest in peace--I had shivers up and down my spine because 
             it was so direct. It was so clear. It makes the point that 
             the Constitution of this country does not prohibit 
             discrimination based on sex, even though the vast majority 
             of Americans believe it is already in the Constitution.
               Ninety-six percent of U.S. adults believe that male and 
             female citizens should have equal rights, and 72 percent 
             mistakenly believe it is already in the Constitution. As 
             Justice Scalia pointed out, it is not. ...
                                               Thursday, March 17, 2016
               Mr. KING of Iowa. ... We have just said goodbye to one 
             of the great Justices in the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice 
             Scalia, who often said that, when he made a decision based 
             on the Constitution and he was uncomfortable with the 
             policy that resulted from that constitutional decision, he 
             was most comfortable that he had made the right 
             constitutional decision when he disagreed with a policy 
             result of that decision. ...
                                               Thursday, April 14, 2016
               Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be 
             recognized by you to address you here on the floor of the 
             U.S. House of Representatives.
               I come to the floor here today with an issue that I 
             think is important that America have a dialog on the 
             topic, and some of that is going on. It is going on in the 
             Presidential races across the country and in the coffee 
             shops and at work, at play, at church, and around the 
             country in the things that we do.
               But then a moment in history comes along that shocked a 
             lot of us to the core--and that was the abrupt and 
             unexpected loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, a person whom I 
             got to know. I would like to say that I called him a 
             friend. He was a person whose personality I enjoyed a lot, 
             his robust sense of humor, his acerbic wit in the way that 
             he conveyed his messages, especially when he wrote the 
             dissenting opinions for the Supreme Court. He found 
             himself occasionally in the minority, but I think he was 
             almost always right in those constitutional decisions.
               When Justice Scalia wrote those minority opinions, he 
             realized that--and he just thought in advance--the 
             students in law school would have to read the dissenting 
             opinions as well as the majority opinions.
               So he made sure when he wrote especially his dissenting 
             opinions that they were engaging, they were entertaining, 
             they were provocative, and they were challenging. It 
             caused the law school students to read those and remember 
             the points that Justice Scalia had made.
               That is a legacy of the 29 years of Justice Scalia that 
             will live within the annals of the history of the United 
             States of America, especially those who are studying 
             constitutional law and those that are in law school. ...
               What we have in front of us is this: The loss of Justice 
             Scalia leaves an empty seat on the Supreme Court. It is an 
             intellectual hole, not just a voting hole. But it is an 
             intellectual hole left by the towering legal intellect of 
             Justice Scalia. ...
               I will go further than to suggest, Mr. Speaker. I will 
             assert that we have a Court today that too often reaches 
             outside its bounds. If I had a criticism of Justice 
             Scalia, it would be his deeper respect for stare decisis 
             that I happen to see in a Justice such as Clarence Thomas. 
             ...
               I want judges who read the Constitution and literally 
             interpret the Constitution. The judges who understand, as 
             Justice Scalia did, that when he makes a decision based on 
             the Constitution and the letter of the law--if he is 
             uncomfortable with the policy decision that emerges with 
             that, that tells him that he can be very comfortable with 
             the constitutionality of the decision that he has made 
             because, on policy, he disagrees, but he knows that he is 
             not there to determine policy. ...
               The Constitution of the United States requires that the 
             Congress establish a Supreme Court. Then it is up to our 
             discretion as to what other Federal court we might want to 
             establish.
               Mr. Speaker, I actually had this debate with Justice 
             Scalia. One of the things I enjoyed about him was little 
             banters along the way and how these arguments came out. I 
             made the point to him that the Constitution only requires 
             that the Congress establish a Supreme Court, not all the 
             other Federal courts. So we could--Congress--abolish all 
             of the Federal districts that are there. We could say 
             there will be no Federal courts. It will all be handled 
             through the Supreme Court itself. That is not a practical 
             application, but it is from a constitutional perspective.
               Then I said to Justice Scalia that we could eliminate 
             all the Federal courts except the Supreme Court. Over 
             time, we could reduce the Supreme Court. There is no 
             requirement that the Supreme Court have nine Justices or 
             seven or five or three. We could reduce the Supreme Court 
             of the United States down to the Chief Justice. There is 
             no requirement that we build or fund a building or heat it 
             or wire it for electronics or anything. There is no 
             requirement that we have staff for any of the Supreme 
             Court. The Congress could crank all the Federal courts 
             down to just the Supreme Court, reduce the Supreme Court 
             down to just the Chief Justice at his own card table, with 
             candle, no staff, and no facility.
               That is the argument I made to Justice Scalia. Some of 
             this I do for entertainment value because he always was an 
             engaging fellow to have these conversations with.
               Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you ever heard this point 
             made to him before, but Justice Scalia's response to it 
             was: I would argue that there is a requirement that there 
             be three Justices on the Supreme Court; otherwise, there 
             is no reason to have a Chief Justice.
               I thought that was a pretty astute response, Mr. 
             Speaker. But my response to that was: we have always had 
             too many chiefs and not enough Indians. ...
             
             


                                    The Honorable

Antonin Scalia

                          March 11, 1936-February 13, 2016


Associate Justice

of the

Supreme Court

of the United States

1986-2016


The Lying in Repose of Justice Scalia

                   Great Hall, Supreme Court of the United States

                                   Washington, DC

                                  February 19, 2016
                              Mass of Christian Burial

             
             


             Antonin Scalia

             Associate Justice of the

             Supreme Court of the United States

             March 11, 1936      February 13, 2016


                              Mass of Christian Burial





             Antonin Scalia

             Associate Justice of the

             Supreme Court of the United States

             March 11, 1936      February 13, 2016





                                  February 20, 2016
                                      11:00 am
                                 Great Upper Church
                 Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate 
                                     Conception
                          Washington, District of Columbia
                              Ministers of the Liturgy

                               Reverend Paul D. Scalia
                             Episcopal Vicar for Clergy
                                Diocese of Arlington
                                Celebrant & Homilist


                                 In the presence of

                                    His Eminence
                                Donald Cardinal Wuerl
                              Archbishop of Washington

                                   His Excellency
                     Most Reverend Carlo Maria Vigano
                  Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

                                   His Excellency
                            Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
                                 Bishop of Arlington

                                 Their Excellencies
                          Attending Archbishops and Bishops


                               Concelebrating Priests
                                    Concelebrants


                                 Robert Banaszewski
                                     John Scalia
                                   Michael Murray
                                 Christopher Scalia
                                    Eugene Scalia
                                   William Heenan
                               Lt. Col. Matthew Scalia
                                     John Bryce
                                    Pall Bearers
                                    Order of Mass

             INTRODUCTORY RITES

             Blessing of the Body and Sprinkling with Holy Water

             Entrance Hymn

                 1. O God, our help in ages past, Our

                 hope for years to come, Our shelter from the

                 stormy blast, And our eternal home.


                 2. Under the shadow of Thy throne Thy

                 saints have dwelt secure; Sufficient is Thine

                 arm alone, And our defense is sure.


                 3. Before the hills in order stood, Or

                 earth received her frame, From everlasting

                 Thou art God, To endless years the same.


                 4. Thy Word commands our flesh to dust, ``Re-

                 turn, ye sons of men:'' All nations rose from

                 earth at first, And turn to earth again.


                 5. A thousand ages in Thy sight Are

                 like an evening gone; Short as the watch that

                 ends the night Before the rising sun.


                 6. Time, like an ever rolling stream, Bears

                 all its sons away; They fly, forgotten,

                 as a dream Dies at the op'ning day.


                 7. O God, our help in ages past, Our

                 hope for years to come, Be Thou our guard while

                 troubles last, And our eternal home.


 
 
 
                                 Opening Remarks                                         Donald Cardinal Wuerl
                                                                                         Archbishop of Washington
 


             Collect

             LITURGY OF THE WORD


 
 
 
                                 Reading I                                               Wisdom 3:1-9
 

                               Mr. Leonard Leo, lector


 
 
 
                                 Psalm Response                                          Psalm 23:1-3, 3-4, 5, 6
 


                 The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall 
                   want.

 
 
 
                                 Reading II                                              Romans 5:5-11
 

                           Justice Clarence Thomas, lector

             Gospel Acclamation

                 Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ, king of endless 
                   glory!

                 I am the resurrection and the life;

                 whoever believes in me, even if he died, will live.

 
 
 
                                 Deacon:                            The Lord be with you.
                                 Assembly:                          And with your spirit.
 
                                 Deacon:                            A reading from the holy Gospel according to Matthew.
                                 Assembly:                          Glory to You, O Lord.
 



 
 
 
                                 Gospel                                                  Matthew 11:25-30
 
                                 Homily                                                  Reverend Paul D. Scalia
                                                                                         Episcopal Vicar for Clergy, Diocese of Arlington
 
                                 General Intercessions                                   Response: Lord, hear
                                                                                         our prayer.
 


             LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST

             Preparation of the Gifts

 
 
 
                                 (Choir) Beati quorum via                                Charles Villiers Stanford
                                                                                         (1852-1924)
 


 
 
 
                                 Beati quorum via integra est:                               Happy are those whose path is blameless,
                                 Qui ambulant in lege Domini.                                who walk in the law of the Lord.
 

                                    (Psalm 119:1)

             Preface

 
 
 
                                 Celebrant:                         Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty
                                                                     Father.
 
                                 Assembly:                           May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
                                                                    for the praise and glory of His name, for our good
                                                                    and the good of all His holy Church.
 


             Preface Dialogue

 
 
 
                                 Celebrant:                          The Lord be with you.
                                 Assembly:                           And with your spirit.
 
                                 Celebrant:                          Lift up your hearts.
                                 Assembly:                           We lift them up to the Lord.
 
                                 Celebrant:                          Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
                                 Assembly:                           It is right and just.
 


             Preface Acclamation

                 Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

                 Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in 
                   excelsis.

                 Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.

                 Hosanna in excelsis.

             Memorial Acclamation

 
 
 
                                 Celebrant:                          The mystery of faith.
 


                 When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,

                 we proclaim Your

                 Death, O Lord, until You come again.

             Great Amen

                 Amen, Amen, Amen.

             COMMUNION RITE

             Lord's Prayer

                 Our Father, who art in heaven,

                 hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come;

                 Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

                 Give us this day our daily bread;

                 and forgive us our trespasses

                 as we forgive those who trespass against us;

                 and lead us not into temptation,

                 but deliver us from evil.

             Doxology

             Sign of Peace

 
 
 
                                 Celebrant:                          The peace of the Lord be with you always.
                                 Assembly:                           And with your spirit.
 


             Litany at the Breaking of Bread

 
 
 
                                 (Choir) Missa Quarti toni                               Tomas Luis de Victoria
                                     Agnus Dei                                           (1548-1611)
 


                 Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

                 Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.


                 Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world, have 
                   mercy on us.

                 Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world, 
                   grant us peace.

 
 
 
                                 Celebrant:                          Behold the Lamb of God,
                                                                    behold Him who takes away the sins of the world.
                                                                    Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.
 
                                 Assembly:                           Lord, I am not worthy
                                                                    that You should enter under my roof,
                                                                    but only say the word
                                                                    and my soul shall be healed.
 


             Communion Antiphon

 
 
 
                                 (Choir) Lux aeterna                                     Plainsong, Mode VIII
 


 
 
 
                                 Lux aeterna luceat ei, Domine:                              Let perpetual light shine upon him, O Lord:
                                 cum sanctis tuis in aeternum                                with Your holy ones for all time,
                                 quia pius es.                                               because You are merciful.
 
                                 Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine:                           Grant him eternal rest, O Lord:
                                 et lux perpetua luceat ei:                                  and let perpetual light shine upon him:
                                 cum sanctis tuis in aeternum                                with Your holy ones for all time,
                                 quia pius es.                                               because You are merciful.
 

             Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

For Catholics

As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when 
we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly 
and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, 
participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have 
fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to 
receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession 
except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In 
this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of 
perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as 
possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is 
encouraged for all.

For Our Fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as 
our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of 
the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and 
begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these 
will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 
``that they may all be one'' (John 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign 
of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those 
churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted 
to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by 
other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the 
diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 4). Members of 
the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish 
National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own 
Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law 
does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these 
Churches (canon 844 3).

For Non-Christians

We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in 
Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to 
offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

For Those Not Receiving Holy Communion

All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their 
hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one 
another.

                   United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1996
             Communion Procession

                 1. Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All, How can I

                 love Thee as I ought? And how revere this

                 wondrous gift. So far surpassing hope or thought?

                 Sweet Sacrament, we Thee adore! O make us love Thee

                 more and more! O make us love Thee more and more.


                 2. Had I but Mary's sinless heart, To love Thee

                 with my dearest King; O! with what bursts of

                 fervent praise, Thy goodness, Jesus would I sing.

                 Sweet Sacrament, we Thee adore! O make us love Thee

                 more and more! O make us love Thee more and more.


                 3. O! see upon the altar placed The victim

                 of divinest love! Let all the earth be-

                 low adore. And join the choirs of heav'n above.

                 Sweet Sacrament, we Thee adore! O make us love Thee

                 more and more! O make us love Thee more and more.


 
 
 
                                 (Choir) Panis angelicus                                 Cesar Franck
                                                                                         (1822-1890)
 



 
 
 
                                 Panis angelicus                                             The Bread of angels
                                 fit panis hominum;                                          was made the Bread of man;
                                 Dat panis caelicus                                          He confined the heavenly Bread
                                 figuris terminum.                                           to a thing of size and shape:
                                 O res mirabilis! Manducat Dominum                           O marvelous thing! That a poor man,
                                 Pauper, servus et humilis.                                  A humble servant, should eat the Lord.
 
                                 Te, trina Deitas unique, poscimus,                          We beseech Thee, O God, Three in One,
                                 Sic nos tu visita, sicut te colimus;                        Visit us, thus, even as we worship Thee.
                                 Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus,                      Lead us into Thy ways; and by them
                                 Ad lucem quam inhabitas.                                    May we direct our course to the Light in which Thou
                                                                                              dwellest.
 


                           (St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274)

 
 
 
                                 (Choir) Ave verum corpus                                Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
                                                                                         (1756-1791)
 


 
 
 
                                 Ave verum corpus                                            Hail, True body,
                                 natum de Maria virgine:                                     born of the Virgin Mary:
                                 vere passum immolatum                                       having truly suffered,
                                 in cruce pro homine,                                        sacrificed on the cross for man,
                                 cujus latus perforatum                                      whose pierced side
                                 unda fluxit et sanguine,                                    flowed water and blood,
                                 esto nobis praegustatum                                     be for us a foretaste
                                 in mortis examine.                                          in the test of death.
 

                       (Text ascribed to Innocent VI, d. 1362)

             Prayer after Communion

             RITE OF COMMENDATION

             Invitation to Prayer

             Song of Farewell

                 May the angels lead you into paradise;

                 may the martyrs come to welcome

                 you and take you to the holy city,

                 the new and eternal Jerusalem.


                 May the choir of angels welcome you

                 Where Lazarus is poor no longer,

                 may you have eternal rest. (Antiphon)

             Prayer of Commendation

             Dismissal

             Closing Hymn

                 1. O God beyond all praising, We worship You to-

                 day And sing the love amazing That songs cannot re-

                 pay For we can only wonder At ev'ry gift You

                 send, At blessings without number And mercies without

                 end: We lift our hearts before You And wait upon Your

                 word: We honor and adore You Our great and mighty 
                   Lord.


                 2. Then hear, O gracious Savior, Accept the love we

                 bring. That we who know Your favor, May serve You as 
                   our

                 king. And whether our tomorrows Be filled with good or
                 ill, We'll triumph through our sorrows And rise to 
                   bless You

                 still: To marvel at Your beauty And glory in Your

                 ways, And make a joyful duty Our sacrifice of praise.


                 3. O God, Almighty Father, Creator of all

                 things, The heavens stand in wonder, While earth Your 
                   glory

                 sings; O Jesus, Word Incarnate, Redeemer most a-

                 dored, All glory, praise and honor Be Yours, O 
                   sov'reign

                 Lord; O God, the Holy Spirit, Who lives within our

                 soul, Send forth Your light and lead us To our eternal 
                   goal!



                        The family of Justice Antonin Scalia
              wishes to extend their sincere gratitude and appreciation
                    to all those who have offered condolences and
                     remembered them in prayer during this time.

                        A memorial program for Justice Scalia
                   will be held at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 1
                               at the Mayflower Hotel,
                      1127 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC.
                    All family and friends are invited to attend
                   and participate in this tribute to the Justice.
                 Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate 
                                     Conception


Rev. Msgr. Walter R. Rossi

Rector of the Basilica

Rev. Msgr. Vito A. Buonanno

Rev. Michael D. Weston

Rev. Raymond A. Lebrun, O.M.I.

Priests of the Basilica

Deacon Ira E. Chase, Sr.

Deacon Joseph Curtis, Jr.

Deacon Michael D. Yakir

Deacons

Peter Latona, D.M.A., Director of Music

Benjamin J. LaPrairie, B.M., Associate Director of Music

Nathan Davy, D.M.A., Assistant Organist

Robert Grogan, D.M.A., Carillonneur and Organist Emeritus

Choir of the Basilica of the National Shrine

Katie Baughman, D.M.A., Crossley Hawn, B.M.,

Susan Lewis Kavinski, B.M., Jacob Perry Jr., B.A.,

Cantors of the Basilica

Liturgical Ministers of the Basilica of the National Shrine

Knights of Columbus, Ushers of the Basilica of the National Shrine

Sisters Servants of Mary Immaculate, Sacristans of the Basilica of the 
National Shrine

                                  Acknowledgements
             The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate 
             Conception gratefully acknowledges the following authors 
             and composers whose materials are employed in this worship 
             leaflet: Processional Hymn Text: Ps 90; Isaac Watts (1674-
             1748), Music: ST. ANNE. Psalm Response Music: Richard 
             Rice. Gospel Acclamation Music: Peter Latona. Preface 
             Acclamation, Memorial Acclamation Music: ICEL  2011. 
             Great Amen Music: Peter Latona. Lord's Prayer Music: 
             Robert Snow, 1964. Communion Procession Text: St. 1-2, 
             Frederick W. Faber (1814-1863); St. 3 Mediator Dei Hymnal, 
             1955;  1955, GIA Publications, Inc., Music: SWEET 
             SACRAMENT. Song of Farewell Music: Howard Hughes. 
             Recessional Hymn Text: Michael Perry (b. 1942),  1982, 
             Hope Publishing Co., Music: THAXTED. Copyrighted materials 
             reprinted with permission under Onelicense.net #A-701285. 
             All rights reserved.

                 Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate 
                                     Conception
                         Rev. Msgr. Walter R. Rossi, Rector
                 400 Michigan Avenue, NE  Washington, DC 20017-1566
                       (202) 526-8300  www.nationalshrine.com
             Mayflower Hotel
                                    March 1, 2016

             Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the 
             United States. I was truly blessed to have had Nino at the 
             Court when I became a member. I was blessed many times 
             over the almost 25 years that we served together.
               There were countless chats walking to the chambers after 
             a sitting or after our conferences. Those very brief 
             visits usually involved more laughter than anything else. 
             There were the many buck-each-other-up visits or checking 
             on one another after one of us had an unpleasant 
             experience. There were calls to test an idea or work 
             through a problem.
               I treasure the many times we had lunch with our law 
             clerks at A.V.'s, where he invariably had an anchovy 
             pizza. My clerk family and I will always toast him at our 
             gatherings, but no anchovy pizza. I loved the eagerness 
             and satisfaction in his voice when he finished a writing 
             with which he was particularly pleased. ``Clarence, you 
             have got to hear this. It is really good.'' Whereupon, he 
             would deliver a dramatic reading.
               He worked hard to get things right--the broad principles 
             and the details of law, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. 
             He was passionate about it all. It was all important to 
             him. None was beneath him, and all deserved and received 
             his full attention. In sports parlance, he gave everything 
             110 percent.
               For the past few years, my place on the bench has been 
             between Nino and Steve Breyer. I loved the back and forth 
             that took place especially the passing of notes and the 
             whispered or muttered commentary. When Nino wanted to talk 
             quietly with me about something, he would lean far back in 
             his chair and say in an almost endearing tone, ``Brother 
             Clarence, what do you think ...?'' Of course, he would 
             offer his opinion of various matters. On one occasion, he 
             commented that one of our opinions that had become an 
             important precedent was just a horrible opinion, one of 
             the worst. I thought briefly about what he said and 
             whispered, ``Nino, you wrote it.''
               In a sense, it is providential (and certainly not 
             probable) that we would serve together. I only knew of him 
             but had never met him. He was from the Northeast, while I 
             am from the Southeast. He came from a house of educators; 
             I, from a household of almost no formal education. But, we 
             shared our Catholic faith and our Jesuit education as well 
             as our sense of vocation.
               For different reasons and from different origins, we 
             were heading in the same direction. So, we walked together 
             and worked together for a quarter century. Along the way, 
             we developed an unbreakable bond of trust and deep 
             affection. Many will fittingly, deservedly, and rightfully 
             say much about his intellect and jurisprudence. But, there 
             is so much more to this good man. As one of our colleagues 
             said, ``He filled the room.'' His passion and his sense of 
             humor were always on full display.
               So was his love for Maureen, his family, his Church, our 
             country, and our Constitution.
               Yesterday, I finished Eric Metaxis' biography of 
             Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One of Hitler's last acts before the 
             Allies defeated Germany was to have this man of God 
             executed. I thought of this memorial gathering as I read 
             Bishop Bell's eulogy of Bonhoeffer. With apologies, I 
             borrow liberally and quote loosely:

               ... with him a piece of my own life is carried to the 
             grave. Yet, our eyes are upon Thee. We believe in the 
             communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the 
             resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. We give 
             thanks to God for the life, the suffering, the witness of 
             our brother whose friends we were privileged to be. We 
             pray God to lead us, too, through his discipleship from 
             this world into His heavenly kingdom; to fulfil in us that 
             other word [that Dietrich used]: ``non potest non laetari 
             qui sperat in Dominum''--while in God confiding I cannot 
             but rejoice.

               God bless you Brother Nino; God bless you!

             Judge Laurence H. Silberman. A number of distinguished 
             scholars and practicing lawyers have spoken at length 
             about Justice Scalia's extraordinary impact on American 
             jurisprudence. Although I have been an admirer of his 
             judicial opinions for his entire career--except for the 
             rare occasion when he voted to overturn one of my 
             opinions--there is no need for me to add to this 
             outpouring of praise. Instead, I speak as one of his 
             oldest friends.
               In 1974, after the notorious Saturday Night Massacre, I 
             came into the Justice Department as Deputy Attorney 
             General, under Attorney General Bill Saxby, the former 
             Senator. The Department was largely cut off from the White 
             House. I have said we were obligated to carry out the 
             President's policy, except insofar as we were bound to 
             support the Special Prosecutor's investigation of him. 
             Surely that was the most extraordinary task of any Justice 
             Department in American history.
               I found many of the senior Presidential appointees in 
             shock, and understandably rather jumpy. The most important 
             Assistant Attorney General's position--certainly at that 
             point--was the one in charge of the Office of Legal 
             Counsel. The incumbent was played out having to navigate 
             through the Watergate reefs. He needed to be replaced. We 
             wanted a brilliant lawyer with steel nerves. I was charged 
             with finding a successor. A list of candidates was 
             compiled. The first person I interviewed was Antonin 
             Scalia, then occupying a quasi-academic role as Chairman 
             of the Administrative Conference. I have never been so 
             impressed. I immediately offered him the post subject to 
             the Attorney General's approval. White House approval in 
             those days was perfunctory given the President's weakness. 
             Nino Scalia was nominated by Richard Nixon and appointed 
             by the new President, Gerald Ford.
               Almost immediately Nino was plunged into the most 
             delicate tasks. I had stopped the White House from 
             allowing a moving truck from carting off the former 
             President's papers until we formally opined as to whether 
             he owned them. Nino Scalia fashioned a brilliant opinion 
             based on historical precedent establishing Nixon's 
             ownership, but the Congress intervened. That led to 
             extensive litigation before we were sustained. I was 
             enormously impressed with Nino's work.
               Then came a less serious legal issue, but an intensely 
             personal one. Bill Simon, the Deputy Secretary of 
             Treasury--an enormously wealthy man--designated the Energy 
             Czar by President Ford, issued an order depriving all 
             Department deputies of their car and driver. I planned to 
             resign because I was so financially strapped that I 
             couldn't afford to buy another car. To my astonishment, 
             Nino devised an exception for me. He arranged for my car 
             to have a police radio in the back and he obtained a gun 
             permit for my chauffeur. That qualified my car as a ``law 
             enforcement vehicle.'' Perhaps that foreshadowed our 
             common view on the Second Amendment.
               In any event, we became close friends and I began, even 
             then, to think of Nino as a potential Supreme Court 
             nominee. After we left government, we both, along with Bob 
             Bork, went to AEI where we enjoyed brown bag lunches with 
             a group of distinguished, mostly conservative, 
             intellectuals and plotted a legal counter-revolution.
               Nino and I stayed in constant touch when he returned to 
             academia at the University of Chicago Law School and I 
             went into the private sector. In 1980, as chairman, I 
             recruited him to join a committee of lawyers and law 
             professors supporting Ronald Reagan. After the election I 
             recommended Nino for various posts, including the one he 
             accepted--a seat on the DC Circuit--ideally fitted for an 
             administrative law expert.
               We often turned to each other for career advice. When he 
             was subsequently offered the Solicitor General post, I 
             advised him to turn it down. I forcefully contended that 
             his chance of a Supreme Court nomination would be actually 
             reduced if he took that post--because of the hot button 
             social issues with which the Solicitor General would have 
             to contend. Then a year later, he returned the favor by 
             talking me into joining him on the DC Circuit.
               In 1986 I was thrilled when he came into my office to 
             tell me privately that he was to be the Supreme Court 
             nominee. He asked me to represent him, which I immediately 
             agreed to do. He asked me for two reasons: He thought the 
             likeliest issues involved the proper limits that should 
             bind a judge's answers to doctrinal questions from 
             Senators. Second, of course, I provided free help.
               For a brilliant judge, Nino was hopelessly impractical. 
             As I was going through his papers, I saw that AT&T owed 
             him a substantial amount of money. I was stunned. It 
             turned out that he had done legal consulting work some 
             years before he was a judge and had forgotten to send a 
             bill. He asked me if he should clean up his accounts by 
             sending the bill now. I told him sadly that it would be 
             rather awkward if AT&T sent him money after his 
             nomination.
               Then before the hearings he came to me concerned about 
             what he thought might be an ethical question. Senator 
             Byrd, the powerful West Virginia Senator, had invited Nino 
             to join him at the Columbus Day parade in Charleston long 
             after the hearings would be over. I laughed and told him 
             that meant he was going to be confirmed, regardless of the 
             hearing, as the first Italian-American on the Court.
               We teased each other constantly about our different 
             ethnic backgrounds. He always twitted me that as a New 
             Yorker he understood Jewish culture better than I did--
             which was true--but I could be defensive. We were both 
             invited to a small dinner party of Harvard graduates to 
             meet the new president of Harvard, Neil Rudenstein, who 
             happened to be half Italian and half Jewish. We were both 
             concerned about the sweep of political correctness on 
             campuses. Rudenstein spoke and answered questions for an 
             hour. Afterward, as we left, we agreed that he sounded 
             good only about half the time. Then we got into a spirited 
             argument, with historical allusions, as to whether the 
             good half was Italian or Jewish.
               Recently I was drawn to the new techniques developed by 
             various organizations to explore one's genetic background. 
             My wife bought a test for me and, to my astonishment, I 
             turned out to be much more Finnish than Jewish. I told 
             Nino and he decided to take the same test. Maureen was 
             quite apprehensive. She was worried that her asserted 
             Irish superiority over Italians could be jeopardized. 
             Although I don't feel free to disclose the complete Scalia 
             report, sure enough, Nino turned out to have a healthy 
             dose of Irish genes.
               Although much of the advice we gave each other will 
             remain private, one issue we discussed has only in the 
             past few days become public. In 1996, as Senator Dole was 
             winning the nomination battle Nino called me with rather 
             momentous news. He had been approached by Congressman 
             Boehner, apparently on Senator Dole's behalf, to inquire 
             whether he would be willing to be the Vice Presidential 
             candidate. I knew that he loved his time on the Court, but 
             he could not help but be flattered. If Bob Dole were 
             elected, who knew what a Vice Presidency would lead to. It 
             was a shrewd notion. Nino, as you all know, had enormous 
             charm. Indeed, it had been thought when he was nominated 
             his charm would be employed to cobble together 
             conservative majorities on the Court, much like William 
             Brennan had forged different kinds of majorities. Of 
             course, that was an illusion because Nino cared more about 
             judicial reasoning than a judicial result. The latter 
             would only follow the former. Only if a Justice is less 
             concerned with reasoning can he or she bargain so 
             effectively.
               Although I told him I thought he would be an enormously 
             effective politician, I was brutally honest, asking him if 
             he wanted to return to law practice or teaching. That took 
             him aback. I explained I was virtually certain Dole would 
             lose. He declined consideration.
               I should include a description of one of the most 
             frightening days of my life. Nino, with two tickets to a 
             Baltimore/Yankees game, invited me to join him. Most human 
             beings have an inboard computer gene that prevents them 
             from driving at high speed too close to the car in front 
             of them, so there is sufficient room to deal with a sudden 
             stop. Nino apparently lacked the gene. By the time we 
             reached the stadium, I was sick in the stomach. I had 
             gotten nowhere asking him to back down.
               We sat in the Orioles section of the stadium in the 
             midst of a group of rather large, fierce, beer-drinking 
             Orioles fans. Nino began to bellow supporting 
             encouragement for the Yankees, combined with loud 
             criticism of the umpires. After several innings one of the 
             largest and ugliest Orioles fans tapped Nino on the 
             shoulder and said, ``If you don't shut up, I am going to 
             punch you in the nose.'' Nino turned to me. Should I tell 
             him who Nino is? I said no, it might more likely get him 
             punched--and maybe me too.
               Although over the years we played poker together and 
             brought our shotguns to a gun club, most notably, every 
             few months we lunched alone, invariably over a pizza and 
             red wine.
               I had lunch with Nino only a few weeks ago at our new 
             pizza joint. We discussed the present political chaotic 
             situation. I wish I could relate our common views, but, of 
             course, it would be improper, so I will leave it to my 
             memoirs.
               I hate to contemplate the end of those lunches. I will 
             miss Nino terribly.

             Catherine Scalia Courtney, daughter. We are gathered here 
             because of one man. A man who was the only son begotten, 
             called ``father'' by many, revered by believers, 
             disparaged by others, a man who espoused justice and 
             truth. That man, of course, is Antonin Scalia.
               Since Dad died, my siblings and I have been compiling a 
             list of ``Dadisms'' via email, shooting them off to each 
             other as they pop into our heads. A couple days ago when I 
             lamented to my brother Matthew that I didn't know what I 
             was thinking when I said I could speak today, he 
             encouragingly reminded me that ``You're not everybody 
             else. You're a Scalia.'' Then, in true Scalia fashion, he 
             quickly followed up with another of our favorites, ``Now 
             don't screw it up.''
               So I hope Dad will forgive me if I screw it up. He might 
             ask, ``Is this of general interest?'' Yes, it is. As one 
             of the minority in the 5 to 4 split of his 9 children, I 
             want to share some of what Dad was to me for the last 49 
             years.
               I was at the top half of the batting order--another 
             nine-member American institution--so for the first decades 
             of my life, as far as I was concerned, Dad was a Justice 
             Department lawyer and a law professor who couldn't seem to 
             hold down a job. During those nomadic years, between Jones 
             Day in Cleveland and Dad's appointment to the appeals 
             court in Washington, we moved eight times.
               There were a few constants, besides the likelihood that 
             there was a new baby on the way. One constant was mass on 
             Sunday--and yes, every Holy Day (even that one that fell 
             right in the middle of our beach vacation!). Another non-
             negotiable was family dinner every night. As busy as he 
             was, and as committed to his work, being home for dinner 
             was a priority. If he could make the time, we were 
             expected to be there, too. Finally, we had each other, 
             which was the greatest gift. No matter where we lived, we 
             were the Scalia family, and we knew that was something 
             important.
               That's not to say it was easy being the daughter of Nino 
             Scalia. He could be demanding, and at times, impatient 
             even.
               He was a poor estimator of travel time, never allowing 
             quite enough to get to that Latin mass which was 45--not 
             30--minutes away.
               He was a stickler about words, pronunciation, and 
             grammar, which wasn't always a fun time. I mean, it wasn't 
             always fun. He repeated words over and over so we heard 
             the difference--Mary, marry, and merry. Cherry, not 
             ``chairy.'' And our favorite: ``dunkey,'' not donkey.
               As the son of an Italian professor, Dad's gift with 
             words and language was in his blood. He still knew some 
             German, and could bluff his way through Italian, and Latin 
             of course, but few knew that he was fluent in another 
             obscure language: the Op Language. He had learned it as a 
             kid in Queens, and he taught it to us as young children. 
             Being able to carry on a conversation in Op was a source 
             of family pride. Also, a good party trick. I was proud to 
             say my name was Copathoperopine Opelopisopabopeth 
             Scopalopiopa.
               I cherish mental snapshots of Dad--on all fours chasing 
             us through the house as the Tickle Monster. A dollop of 
             shaving cream on my nose when I went up to say goodbye 
             before school. Belting out ``My Uncle Roasted a Kangaroo'' 
             or ``Mr. Froggy Went-a-Courting'' at the piano. Waving his 
             arms at the grill, commanding the Saturday hamburgers to 
             ``be juicy.'' Reading fairy tales--not Disney's Rapunzel 
             or the Little Golden Books' Snow White. He was an 
             originalist, after all, so our bedtime stories were the 
             Brothers Grimm, an old boxed, cloth, hardcover edition 
             with grotesque illustrations.
               I will let the legal world discuss his judicial legacy, 
             but for me one decision stands above all others. That was 
             the landmark decision of 1960 to marry Maureen McCarthy. 
             She was the perfect foil. Anyone who knows Mom knows that 
             she is as smart as, dare I say smarter than, Dad. (I can 
             tell you for sure if you needed help with math homework, 
             you'd never ask him!) As he used to say, he did the 
             Constitution, and she did everything else. The day-to-day 
             running of the business that is a large family fell to 
             Mom.
               He never made her work seem any less important than his 
             own, and he gave her credit for it. He used to jokingly 
             say that she was ``a wonderful little woman,'' and we all 
             sort of knew that he meant it. Packing up a huge household 
             for each of those moves, making sacrifices to stretch a 
             public service salary to feed and clothe a large family, 
             fighting to raise us in the faith in an increasingly 
             secular world. She supported him and stood by him so he 
             could focus on what I believe they both saw as his 
             calling.
               I am so grateful that I was given the opportunity to 
             travel with Mom and Dad to Galway 2 years ago. For the 
             first time, I got to appreciate what I had never noticed 
             before as a kid. That zest for life, going at full speed, 
             trying to see it all and cram it all in, and his 
             partnership with Mom. He taught a class each morning for 
             New England Law/Boston, met us back at the house for a 
             quick lunch, and then we hit the road. Mom was the tour 
             guide--she had the books with turned down pages and Post-
             it notes, and she read out our itinerary as he took the 
             wheel. ``What old church are we going to see today, 
             Maureen?,'' he'd ask. And he'd complain--about the clouds 
             that we were always heading toward, that this was a really 
             out-of-the-way place, that bikes shouldn't be allowed on 
             the narrow roads, and it's best not to say what he did 
             when he caught sight of a E.U. flag. ``Now, Nino,'' Mom 
             would say. But here's the thing--he always ended up doing 
             what Maureen told him to. This was their shtick, and it 
             took me 40-some years to see it. He deferred to Mom, 
             respected her opinion, and was happy following her lead 
             when he knew it was important to her.
               The Scalia family feels blessed by all the prayers, 
             memories, and recollections shared with us over the last 
             few weeks. I know that for all of us, and especially Mom, 
             they have been a source of great comfort and consolation, 
             and have been an affirmation that his was a life well 
             lived, and he will be missed.

             Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of 
             the United States. In my treasure trove of memories, an 
             early June morning, 1996. I was about to leave the Court 
             to attend the Second Circuit Judicial Conference at Lake 
             George. Justice Scalia entered, papers in his hand. 
             Tossing many pages onto my desk, he said: ``Ruth, this is 
             the penultimate draft of my dissent in the VMI case. It's 
             not yet in shape to circulate to the Court, but I want to 
             give you as much time as I can to answer it.'' On the 
             plane to Albany, I read the dissent. It was a zinger, of 
             the ``this wolf comes as a wolf'' genre. It took me to 
             task on things large and small. Among the disdainful 
             footnotes: ``The Court refers to the University of 
             Virginia at Charlottesville. There is no University of 
             Virginia at Charlottesville, there is only the University 
             of Virginia.'' (Professor Christopher, would your Dad say 
             the same thing today?) Thinking about fitting responses 
             consumed my weekend, but I was glad to have the extra days 
             to adjust the Court's opinion. My final draft was much 
             improved thanks to Justice Scalia's searing criticism.
               Another indelible memory, the day the Court decided Bush 
             v. Gore, December 12, 2000, I was in chambers, exhausted 
             after the marathon: review granted Saturday, briefs filed 
             Sunday, oral argument Monday, opinions completed and 
             released Tuesday. No surprise, Justice Scalia and I were 
             on opposite sides. The Court did the right thing, he had 
             no doubt. I disagreed and explained why in a dissenting 
             opinion. Around 9 p.m. the telephone, my direct line, 
             rang. It was Justice Scalia. He didn't say ``get over 
             it.'' Instead, he asked, ``Ruth, why are you still at the 
             Court? Go home and take a hot bath.'' Good advice I 
             promptly followed.
               Among my favorite Justice Scalia stories, when President 
             Clinton was mulling over his first nomination to the 
             Supreme Court, Justice Scalia was asked: ``If you were 
             stranded on a desert island with your new Court colleague, 
             who would you prefer, Larry Tribe or Mario Cuomo?'' 
             Justice Scalia answered quickly and distinctly: ``Ruth 
             Bader Ginsburg.'' Within days, the President chose me.
               Among Justice Scalia's many talents, he was a discerning 
             shopper. In Agra together in 1994, our driver took us to 
             his friend's carpet shop. One rug after another was tossed 
             onto the floor, leaving me without a clue which to choose. 
             Nino pointed to one he thought Maureen would like for 
             their beach house in North Carolina. I picked the same 
             design, in a different color. It has worn very well.
               Once asked how we could be friends, given our 
             disagreement on lots of things, Justice Scalia answered: 
             ``I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very 
             good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't 
             separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't 
             want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multimember 
             panel.'' Justice Scalia was fond of Justice Brennan, as 
             Justice Brennan was of him.
               I will miss the challenges and the laughter he provoked, 
             his pungent, eminently quotable opinions, so clearly 
             stated that his words never slipped from the reader's 
             grasp, the roses he brought me on my birthday, the chance 
             to appear with him once more as supernumeraries at the 
             opera.
               In his preface to the libretto of the opera buffo 
             ``Scalia/Ginsburg,'' Justice Scalia described as the peak 
             of his days in Washington, DC, an evening in 2009 at the 
             Opera Ball, at the British Ambassador's Residence, when he 
             joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano 
             for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three 
             Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent 
             performer. How blessed I was to have a working colleague 
             and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high 
             spirits, and quick wit. In the words of a duet for tenor 
             Scalia and soprano Ginsburg, we were different, yes, in 
             our interpretation of written texts, yet one in our 
             reverence for the Court and its place in the U.S. system 
             of governance.

             John Manning, law clerk to Justice Scalia. Mrs. Scalia, 
             the Scalia family, fellow law clerks, and distinguished 
             guests. I was one of Justice Scalia's early law clerks, 
             and today I'll say a few words about what it was like to 
             clerk for the great man, and then a bit about his larger 
             impact on the law.
               Let me start with the clerkship: The Scalia chambers 
             were a tad raucous. Believe it or not, some people think 
             of conservatives as formal and hierarchical. Justice 
             Scalia was anything but that. Although he was (as he 
             joked) a ``Supreme Justice,'' and we were five youngsters, 
             he made it clear that no argument was out of bounds. At 
             the clerk conferences that took place the day before the 
             Court's conferences, it was basically a free for all. All 
             of his clerks would argue with one another and with the 
             Justice--strongly, passionately, often embarrassingly 
             loudly, and completely without fear that we would offend 
             the Boss. While three of us were conservative, and two 
             were liberal, our differences in those clerk conferences 
             rarely split along political lines. That wasn't what the 
             job was about. His job was to apply a legal methodology he 
             thought appropriate for a life-tenured judge in a 
             constitutional democracy. Our job was to help him do that. 
             Period.
               There was an openness to all of this that made us feel 
             perfectly safe to disagree, even simply, with the Justice. 
             I'm not saying there weren't moments of doubt. As anyone 
             who clerked for him could tell you: Sometimes you'd be 
             making a point, and he'd sort of make a face--he'd tilt 
             his head, furrow his brow, and stare into space for what 
             seemed like an abnormally long period of time. It was a 
             tad disquieting. But we soon figured that this was just 
             his thinking face, and what it meant was that he was 
             actually thinking hard about what we were saying. About 
             the only time he ever overtly pulled rank was when one of 
             us got a little overinvested, and he'd say, ``Hey, 
             remember it's my name that has to go on the opinion.'' 
             Especially with me for some reason, that was often 
             followed by the further observation, ``And I'm not a 
             nut.'' The whole thing was unforgettable.
               The experience changed my life. His openness, his 
             enthusiasm, his clarity, his playfulness, his common 
             sense, his commitment to principle--all of this made even 
             the blandest legal issue seem vivid and human and 
             consequential. It is simply not natural to feel as 
             strongly as he made us feel about legislative history, 
             about the harmless error doctrine, about the borrowing of 
             statutes of limitations, about the level of generality of 
             some ancient common law tradition. Indeed, I confess that 
             it may not be perfectly healthy to feel as strongly as I 
             do about the Chevron doctrine to this very day. But I'm 
             working on it.
               That was Justice Scalia's gift. He took the boring, 
             mundane, technical, everyday work of the law, and he 
             showed us what was at stake for our constitutional 
             democracy. Maybe that's why he got so much done. Just 
             think about statutes. It's easy to forget how different 
             the world was before Justice Scalia. How much more the 
             Court leaned on legislative history. How readily the Court 
             enforced the spirit rather than the letter of the law. 
             These practices had gone on, largely unquestioned, for 
             generations, in some cases for centuries.
               In no time at all, Justice Scalia changed the terms of 
             debate. He showed that it was all about the allocation of 
             power. His resistance to legislative history was not just 
             empty formalism. It was about checking the transfer of 
             legislative power from Congress and the President to 
             unrepresentative committees, legislators, staff, or 
             lobbyists. His preference for letter over spirit was not 
             just a better way of finding legislative intent. It was 
             about protecting the messiness of American democracy 
             against the self-aggrandizing presumption that judges 
             could and should gloss over the awkward compromises that 
             are the staple of our legislative process--and, by 
             extension, of our democracy itself.
               All of this was exhilarating. In fact, it's what 
             inspired me to go into teaching law. In the many times 
             Justice Scalia visited Harvard in the years I've been 
             there, he inspired my students too. He inspired them with 
             his plain outspokenness, his openness, his willingness to 
             take seriously the criticisms of legal novices he did not 
             know and would not see again, his acknowledgment to total 
             strangers that he did not always get things right, his 
             sense of humor, his generosity of spirit, and the simple 
             power of his ideas. He was a force of nature. Year after 
             year, I have had the experience of one or more of my 1L's 
             coming up to me, looking stricken, and saying to me, 
             ``Professor Manning, I'm a liberal; is it OK that I agree 
             with Justice Scalia's opinions? I do my very best to 
             reassure them, ``There's nothing wrong with you.''
               It's hard to believe the great man has passed on. But I 
             cling confidently to the thought that Justice Scalia will 
             continue to teach students long into the future--that 
             because of his clarity, his commitment to principle, and 
             his courage, his ideas will long outlive his days on 
             Earth. I myself will try to honor his memory by always 
             remembering his lesson that one's commitment to principle 
             is tested only when it hurts.
               Justice Scalia was a great Justice. He was a wonderful 
             husband, father, and grandfather. He was also a wonderful 
             friend. He was kind and funny and generous. I can never 
             repay the debt I owe him. Like so many of us here today, I 
             would not have the life I have, a life I love, had it not 
             been for Justice Scalia.

             Joan Larsen, law clerk for Justice Scalia. As one of the 
             Justice's former clerks, I want to begin with thanks to 
             Mrs. Scalia and to all of the Scalia family for your 
             incredible generosity to us over the past few weeks. In 
             the midst of your own incalculable grief, you saw also our 
             mourning and, despite our large numbers, you invited us 
             in. It has eased our pain tremendously to be with you and 
             to be a part of the remembrances for our beloved Boss. We 
             are truly grateful.
               The clerks have been talking over the past few weeks, 
             and many have commented on how hard it was to stand vigil 
             over the Justice as he lay in repose in the Great Hall. 
             Alone with our thoughts as we stood on the cold marble 
             floor, memories came flooding back. The most challenging 
             task, nearly everyone reported, was not to keep from 
             crying (for that might have been forgiven) but instead to 
             keep from grinning. The Justice was fundamentally a happy 
             man, and it is impossible for us to remember him without 
             remembering the zeal with which he embraced life. Even 
             when things were not going his way on the Court, he was 
             generally upbeat. He sang in his chambers; he whistled in 
             the corridors; his sonorous laugh reverberated throughout 
             the courtroom. His wit was sharp, and he delighted in 
             matching it against anyone foolish enough to try.
               He held us, and himself, to very high standards. He was 
             sometimes impatient when we would fall short of the mark. 
             But he was always quick to forgive, to teach, and to move 
             on.
               I remember keenly the time that I committed what in his 
             chambers amounted to a mortal sin: I handed him a draft 
             opinion which cited Webster's Third. This, just one term 
             after his famous dictionary case--MCI v. AT&T--had made 
             clear for all the world that the third edition of 
             Webster's was not, in his estimation, a dictionary at all.
               ``Did you not read, before coming to this Court, the 
             opinions of the last term?,'' he boomed--displeased, but 
             not angry. The prudent response at that moment would have 
             been to beg the opinion back, and to have returned it 
             immediately with all reference to Webster's expunged--the 
             OED shining brightly in its place.
               But panic must have overtaken my brain's executive 
             function and, instead, I foolishly tried an excuse. ``Umm, 
             yes, Justice,'' I said. ``I remembered that you had strong 
             views about dictionaries. But what I couldn't remember was 
             just which one you didn't like. So I made sure to work 
             only from the one you keep on display in the front 
             office.''
               His eyebrows rose. What momentarily flashed as anger in 
             his eyes immediately softened into disbelief. It was no 
             longer about me, or the opinion, but about the prospect 
             that that blasphemous book could be residing in his front 
             office. I could see him thinking: ``It could not be so!''
               He rose and walked to the dictionary stand. Taking the 
             open pages of the large leather-bound book in his hands, 
             he proceeded, in painstakingly slow motion, to flip over 
             the cover. Did he have me, or did I have him? Then THUNK 
             went the book as its front met its back. He glanced down 
             at the cover, and then his eyes met mine. I dared for a 
             nanosecond to feel redeemed, even victorious. Then, 
             without a moment lost, he reclaimed the advantage. ``This, 
             my dear,'' he pronounced, ``is but a trap laid for the 
             unwary.'' And his enormous laugh echoed through the 
             chambers.
               I had been careless, reckless even; and I had been 
             schooled; but I had been forgiven.
               I am often asked what it was like to clerk for Justice 
             Scalia; and more particularly to be a woman clerking for 
             Justice Scalia. ``Much like being a man clerking for 
             him,'' is my response. I have spoken to many of the 
             Justice's female clerks in the days since his passing, and 
             the same story repeats. He demanded as much from us as 
             from our brethren. And he gave us just as many 
             opportunities to show our stuff.
               What better preparation for any of us, male or female, 
             than to have matched wits with the Justice? That we almost 
             always came up short should not be dwelled upon. That was 
             inevitable. What is remarkable is that he cared enough 
             about us to ask our opinions and to debate with us when he 
             disagreed. I have often wondered, what was in this for 
             him? He could have easily done the job without us. But 
             what was in it for us was invaluable. With each thrust and 
             parry we got sharper. What an incomparable gift to a young 
             lawyer.
               As we have grown in our legal careers, the lessons of 
             the clerkship have stayed with us. We each have our 
             favorite grammar lesson: ``Never use impact as a verb.'' 
             ``A condition contrary to fact requires the subjunctive.'' 
             ``The possessive case precedes a gerund.''
               And his habits of careful thought, meticulous research, 
             and economy of language are ones that we all try to 
             emulate. So many of the clerks have said that when they 
             write, they still write for him. That has been my 
             experience. As I struggled to write my own first opinions, 
             I was nearly paralyzed by the prospect that he might 
             someday read them.
               This, the writing of an opinion, leads me in a 
             roundabout way to the story I'd like to end with. It is a 
             story I meant to tell the Justice. Indeed I had called 
             Angela a few weeks back to inquire when he might be in 
             chambers. ``Just Wednesday next week,'' she replied, 
             ``then he'll be heading out of town.'' Wednesday came, and 
             I was deep into writing a bear of an opinion; the day 
             slipped away. ``I'll call him Monday,'' I thought. Of 
             course, Monday didn't come.
               But I thought I would share with you now what I wish I 
             had shared with him then.
               As a new Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court, I have 
             been making the rounds introducing myself to the people of 
             my State--speaking to small groups in church basements and 
             libraries and courthouses. Twice in the few weeks before 
             his passing, the most extraordinary thing happened. When I 
             got to the part of my bio where I say, ``and then I 
             clerked for Justice Scalia,'' some members of the audience 
             spontaneously burst into applause. These were not groups 
             of lawyers or judges; just groups of ordinary 
             Michiganders.
               The first time this happened, I'll admit I was startled. 
             Most people, after all, cannot name a Supreme Court 
             Justice; fewer still have formed an opinion. I said as 
             much, and that I would be sure to pass their enthusiasm 
             along to the Justice. ``He would like to hear that,'' I 
             said. Then I went on with my remarks. When I got to the 
             end of my speech, a member of the audience stuck up his 
             hand: ``Who did you say you clerked for again?'' he asked.
               ``What?'' I thought to myself. ``Did this guy walk in 
             late? We just had this whole thing ...'' But I answered: 
             ``Justice Scalia.'' This time, most of the crowd got to 
             its feet and gave him a standing ovation.
               ``We just wanted to have the chance to do that for him 
             again,'' the man explained.
               Me too.

             Mary Clare Scalia Murray, daughter. Thank you for being 
             here and for your kind words of sympathy, for your 
             wonderful affection for our father, for the stories of 
             your friendships, and most especially for your prayers.
               There have been many remarks about Dad's faith and the 
             central role it played in his life. For many of us the 
             only way to comprehend the loss of our father, friend, or 
             colleague, is to place it in the framework of God's plan 
             and God's mercy, particularly during this year which Pope 
             Francis has named the Year of Mercy.
               When we say that his faith was important to him, some 
             may understand that to mean he was Catholic, he went to 
             church.
               What Dad's, and really Mom and Dad's, practice of faith 
             meant for us growing up was that we never missed Sunday 
             mass unless we were sick (in which case we'd better plan 
             on staying in that bed for the day), and that as a family 
             we drove however far was necessary to find what Dad 
             considered an appropriate liturgy. Our Sundays in Chicago 
             were especially adventurous: rather than walking 10 
             minutes to the neighborhood church, Dad drove us 30 
             minutes to a city church led by Italian priests whose 
             accents were so thick that it was hard to tell when they 
             were speaking English or Latin.
               We can tell stories about this as part of our strict 
             upbringing, but what that approach to faith did for us was 
             give us a framework of obedience to the Church and instill 
             in us an acceptance of the basic obligations we owe her. 
             We also learned that though worship is a deeply personal 
             experience, it is built on centuries of tradition and 
             history rich with meaning.
               Faith in our home was also the intellectual exercise of 
             explaining the teachings of the Church through reason. 
             There were frequent conversations about sermons, good and 
             bad, and about why the Church taught certain things and 
             why the teachings made sense for mankind, why we could 
             understand them as truths.
               In the many stories that have been published or shared 
             since Dad's death, I've continued to grow in my 
             understanding of my father and in his daily exercise of 
             God's love, which is what mercy is. His ability to form 
             deep, lifelong friendships with people of varying views; 
             his generosity and humility in reaching out to others, to 
             strangers, to people from all walks of life. Now the 
             unbelievable outpouring of respect and affection from 
             people throughout the country because of what he 
             symbolized to them. These are the fruits of my father's 
             faith and of God's mercy through him.
               The events of the last 2 weeks have been physically and 
             emotionally exhausting, but also spiritually renewing. The 
             procession of thousands of Americans through the Supreme 
             Court as Dad lay in repose brought many of us great 
             consolation. As for the funeral mass, we really did 
             initially consider a small private Latin mass. That's what 
             Dad would have wanted. But it fell to me to remind my 
             mother, as it so often does, since when do we care what 
             Dad wants? He wouldn't want us to change our way of doing 
             things so suddenly.
               As a family we recognized that the final opportunity to 
             pray in a Church with his body should be shared with the 
             large number of friends and faithful that relied on him. 
             The joy and peace from that mass were a gift to many, who 
             continue to respond to it.
               Since his death I have learned so much about my father's 
             faith and how he lived it. This is the great mercy we have 
             been given through this loss: that our love for him and 
             our understanding of his legacy to us continue to grow 
             even in death. That we grow in a new understanding of 
             God's love through the words and memories of others. Some 
             of my friends have expressed this so beautifully in the 
             Jewish tradition--may his memory be a blessing. It is 
             that, and also a source of grace, and an opportunity to 
             grow in faith. I can't think of any greater legacy.
               Thank you.



                              [all]