ms. myles: i can say one thing about that. thatd a reason for doing and that was he didn't want to be -- i think he wanted to be on the have an influence way the legal scholars, judges public, american public thought about the constitution a greatrporation is example because the text of the constitution couldn't be clearer amendment does not apply to the states. congress shall pass no law. pass no lawes shall and the idea that somehow was 14thporated through the amendment to the states following the civil war is not historically -- it's not supported, really, as an historical matter. to go was not willing back that far and turn back the itck, partly because would -- it would make -- it him incapable of contributing to the debate about what the first amendment should since most cases that come up, come up from states, and in every such case, he would have to say, not applicable. of course there would still be but i would wager that the number of first amendment cases that come up in than thes is greater number that comes in the

ms. myles: i would add, also, it's not surprising that he was passionate about separation of powers given his views on the limitations of the judiciary. everything about his jurisprudence consistently says the role of the judge should be a very limited one. put it another way, the judge doesn't exercise legislative power or executive power and when it does so, it's acting illegitimately and also diminishing the rights of the people tone act their own laws so it's in that way diminishing the freedom of the people that is preserved by the separation of powers. he also parenthetically worked in the executive branch, and had strong views from that experience of the importance of a singular executive and of executive power so he came to the court with very fully ormed views on the executive power, as well as legislative and judicial. >> one of the things that most of the commentary about justice scalia's passing has not focused on is was he himself changing his views in anything and the idea that fl

ms. myles: i can start.ustice scalia did have an amazing ability to appreciate in other people their best qualities. and he loved the other justices on the court. and, you know, i had the good fortune of clerking the last year justice brennan was on the court and justice marshall was also still on the court then. what people often talk about how justice scalia's relationship with justice ginsburg and that is a famous relationship and quite a remarkable one that was formed when the two of them were judges together on the d.c. circuit. they got to be friends and spent every new year's together and they loved opera and loved to go together and he was thrilled when she was appointed to the court because now one of his best friends would be his colleague. they also famously were able to disagree on substantive matters pretty well without getting personally annoyed with each other. they actually loved that sparring. but also, you know, justice brennan and justice scalia got along famously. i just remember seeing t

. >> thank you, ms. myles. professor mitchell. >> as kristin notes, there is little doubt that the justice's presence on the supreme court has transformed the approach to statutory interpretation. if you are to pick up any supreme court statutory opinion from the 1960s or '70s, you will see extensive reliance on legislative history. today in supreme court opinions you see legislative history discussed mostly in dissenting opinions, if at all. text and structure have become paramount in the way the supreme court interprets statutes. at the same time, justice scalia's tenure on the court has been less transformative in the field of constitutional law. it is clear that a majority of the supreme court still subscribes to the living constitution mindset that produced discussions such as row against wade and the same same marriage is the same, if you read the opinion offered by kennedy it assaults precedent over constitutional texts and departs from the original understanding of the 14th amendment and rejects effort

ms. myles: the second flag decided my was term. texas versus johnson was the before ie that came up '88 term and the trying to fix the problem court ad created in texas versus johnson. at the time johnson was decided, 48 out of 50 states prohibited the burning of the united states flag as a means of protest. that was essentially what all the statutes said, and the court, in an opinion by justice brennan, justice scalia didn't write opinions in either texas versus johnson or eichland, the one that came up in my term, but he joined the other one, which was quite extensive, along with marshall, blackmon, and kennedy. what brennancalia, understanding n of the first amendment that went back largely through court it anent, i wouldn't call original opinion by justice brennan, but nonetheless it historical meaning of the first amendment as the beginningexfounded it with justice holmes various up to in leading cases the adoption of the view, that if words or expressions are made at the core hat's of what is protected by the first amendment.