be a flashy protest, but it hasn't affected me in the least because i'm something of an encyclopedia originalist. a couple times a month i have wikipedia printed out and bound. this is volume 5,470, star trek yeoman rangd through yeoman smith, b. folks, while i am no fan of internet censorship, we must put an end to all of this copyright infringement. con tetd providers like me are getting robbed by people posting pirate bootleg videos like this. [laughter] i was not paid for any of that footage. as far as i'm concerned, that dog should get the chair, or possibly the couch. i will not stand for these sites going on strike. i say the internet has too much control over what's on the web. that ends tonight. i can provide anything that the internet gives you. for instance, you miss read it today. no problem. got that covered. here is a picture of a cat playing xbox against richard dawkins wearing yoda ears. karma points, please. and for those who like boing-boing, no problem. here is the new domino's stuffed cheesy bread commercial set to the imperial march from star wars. [imperial march playing] >

. >> stephen: i'm a constitutional originalist, along with scalia, okay. >> yeah. >> stephen: i do not think, you think this is a living document. >> well, i don't think it's a dead document. i think, the cool thing about it is we can argue about what it means. a lot of it, you know, like liberty what is liberty. >> stephen: freedom. >> what is equality, freedom to do what. >> stephen: be free. >> yeah, right. >> stephen: is that too tough. coy teach at harvard. right? >> yes, could i take your class. >> stephen: you sure could. you are taking my class right now, mister. >> i can sense that (cheers and applause) >> stephen: my favorite decision is citizens united. okay, i love that. >> i can see that okay. >> stephen: because as we know santaa collar lasouthern pacific railroad corporations are people. >> whether corporations are persons are or not t doesn't necessarily decide the case. the supreme court said that whoever is talking whether it's a corporation or something else. >> stephen: right. >> people have a right to hear what it is saying. and so even if we said in the constituti

now, that was bad news for originalist. alt-a, it was not good news for his stories. we do not like to link very hard on cracked games. so, what's happened? there's been a revolution in 25 years, and the revolution is coming out of madison, wisconsin, a wonderful project of documentary editing all the documentary history of the ratification of the constitution. for instance, there are now 22 volumes in print and over 21 in print when i dash that when my book went to press. 14 focus on medicine in individual states. what did they do? they go into all the archives. they read in newspapers. they collect everything. they transcribed them. they collate them. they published them in subsidized volumes. here i am just an ordinary academic, and i could buy all the volumes. it was marvelous and then i could mark them up. with regard to the conventions i think the transformation is the most dramatic. what they do day by day for these conventions is to collate the various documents, when it met, who and what officers they elected. what delegates appeared win. what rules they adop

>> guest: i think that's right in the sense that he says he's an originalist. now, in practice as a supreme court justice he understands that originalism doesn't work all the time, and he's even said, well, i'm an originalist, but i'm not a nut, and there are times when i'll depart from originalism when it's really necessary to do so. >> host: but hasn't he used the phrase "dead constitution"? >> guest: he has, in order to talk those of us who -- to taunt those of us who believe in a living constitution. and as i say, the concern is, well f the constitution's changing, just tell me something about who's changing it and why and when, and i'm not sure i want to get onboard with the people who are changing it. as i said, i think there's a concern there that needs to be addressed. >> host: how do you glean the founding fathers' intent? is it important in 2011 to know what the founding fathers' intent was? >> guest: well, there are a couple of things you can say about the founding fathers' intelligent. if what you're looking for are the principles, the really underl

votes and opinions have dedicated originalist conservative posture, including firm commitments to a limited government role such as gonzalez versus carhart, majority vote, statutory construction, determined opposition to racial preference policies inherit in the affirmative action, university of michigan case, dissenting opinion. and resolute of federal principles the united states term limits versus thornton, dissenting opinion. in 2007 he boasted to federalist society. one thing i have demonstrated in 16 years on the supreme court is you can do the job without asking a single question. end quote. >> with that, i'll say a few words of conclusion to draw this to a close. justice sutter's record was summed up. in his bush 41 oral history. i think sutter was more liberal than those involved in the selection process anticipated. or as governor sununu put it, wit slightly more pitt, to this day, anytime i go to a conservative meeting, 15 people come up to me and hit me with a sutter two by four across the forehead about bush's second supreme court nominee, thornburgh uttered a blandered truism,

so there is really no case to support the citizens united decision if you're wan originalist. -- an originalist. federal laws have prestricted spending since 1907. the principle that a corporation is not allowed to spend unlimited dollars to influence political campaigns is a long established cornerstone from teddy roosevelt a senators ago to senators mccain and ryan gold who won that bruising battle for the bipartisan reform act. citizens united overturned not just all that legislation but a long line of judicial decisions upholding those restrictions on corporate cash in elections. so there's no case here based on precedent, either. justice stevens ♪ed -- noted that i'll quote him again, the only relevant thing that has changed since those prior precedents that were overviewld the composition of this court." the conservatives got a majority of five and they ran with it. judicial activism, pure, plain, and simple. the activism appears pretty nakedly in the majority's findings of fact. just for starters, a supreme court is not supposed to make findings of fact. its role is to review the factu