On Tuesday night we attended an excellent event here in Washington. Sponsored by the Federalist Society and titled An Evening with Justice Antonin Scalia, the event consisted of a talk by the justice about his new book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, followed by a question-and-answer session and book signing.

The first part of our write-up, focused on the book talk, was previously posted here. The second and final part, focused on the Q-and-A, appears after the jump.

There were no live questions during the session (which makes sense, since the questioners at such events often make spectacles of themselves). Instead, audience members wrote questions down on index cards, which were passed up to the moderator, Gibson Dunn partner Doug Cox.

Despite not selecting any of the questions we submitted — Doug, that hurt our feelings — Cox did a very good job as moderator. He kept the proceedings moving along at a brisk clip, which allowed Justice Scalia to answer many different queries. In December 2006, when Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated the Scalia-Breyer debate, one quibble we had with her moderation was that she didn’t ask enough of the audience-submitted questions.

Here are selected questions and answers. The material is paraphrased unless otherwise indicated. “AS” = Antonin Scalia; at One First Street, the justices are referred to by their initials in writing.

How do you persuade colleagues with judicial philosophies that differ from yours?

AS explained that his book is aimed at the advocate — which is why they (he and co-author Bryan Garner) say it’s okay to use legislative history, even though AS himself detests it. He urged advocates not to argue solely to “the fifth judge” — cough cough, Justice Kennedy — explaining that the other judges will notice it, and will not like it.

(He actually never got around to answering the question about how to persuade colleagues with different views. The omission may be telling, insofar as conservatives at the time of his appointment may have overestimated AS’s ability to persuade — or interest in persuading — his colleagues. Supporters of his nomination thought he might initiate a rightward shift by the Court, building coalitions through his persuasive powers and personal charm. But over the years, AS has been more of the great dissenter than the great persuader.)

What drew you to administrative law?

Having entered academia after seven years in private practice, AS was comfortable with private-law subjects. In addition, during his time in government, he was involved in administrative law issues. He also joked that administrative law is “an acquired taste.”

He then tossed out an interesting tidbit that we’re not sure has been mentioned previously. Before he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit, he was approached about a possible seat on the Seventh Circuit. He was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School at the time, so the Seventh Circuit would have been his regional appeals court. But he turned it down, holding out for the D.C. Circuit spot that he expected to free up shortly. Perhaps he held out for the D.C. Circuit because of his interest in administrative law; perhaps he did so knowing that the super-prestigious D.C. Circuit is the surest path to One First Street. The gambit paid off.

(Interestingly enough, rumor has it that Judge Janice Rogers Brown also took a similar “D.C. Circuit or Bust” philosophy. While on the California Supreme Court, she was approached about possibly being nominated to the Ninth Circuit. But she held out for the D.C. Circuit — and got her wish. Now that it looks like she won’t be a Supreme Court nominee anytime soon, however, and has to deal with all those super-boring admin cases, we wonder if she regrets her decision.)

What are your thoughts on the current Supreme Court confirmation process?

AS stated that the confirmation process has become more politicized because the judicial role has become more politicized — and that won’t change until courts adopt originalism as an interpretive philosophy. He looked down at his watch, then looked up and said: “That’s not happening anytime soon.”

How much of the time can a weak case be won by strong advocacy?

“You cannot imagine how much of the time,” said Justice Scalia, to laughter. “It happens with some frequency.” And that’s why you need to buy his book!

What is the most important thing you learned from your mother?

Perhaps caught off guard by the “Miss America” nature of this question, AS actually had a hard time answering at first. He seemed puzzled by the idea that he might have learned things from his mother. If Mamma Scalia were alive and in the room, she probably would have given him one of these.

After a while, he said: “My mother was a perfectionist, and I think I’ve inherited that. But I wouldn’t call it advice. She didn’t sit me down and say, ‘Son, be perfect.’ It was more by example.”

He did cite some advice from his father (which $1,000-an-hour Biglaw partners should take note of): “Brains are like muscles. You can hire them by the hour. The only thing that can’t be bought is character.”

What’s the best part of being a Supreme Court justice?

Good oral argument — that’s what he enjoys the most. The worst part of the SCOTUS gig? “Going through cert petitions.”

(C’mon, Nino — isn’t that what law clerks are for? We doubt you’re getting paper cuts from cert petitions.)

“Sixty percent of what I do in my job is really enjoyable,” he said. “That’s a really high percentage. Only forty percent is dreck.”

This should be heartening to beleaguered law-firm lawyers. Being a Supreme Court justice is regarded as one of the best jobs on earth. But if forty percent of that dream job is “dreck,” how bad can your existence be? And, depending on where you work and how senior you are, you may earn more than Justice Scalia (whose 2008 salary is $208,100).

How do your religious views affect your rulings?

AS said that he tries to rigorously observe the commandment “thou shalt not lie” (e.g., be honest in dealing with and characterizing precedent). “Other than that, not at all.”

What law school classes would you recommend?

AS tossed out a whole host of black-letter classes, including federal jurisdiction and various statutory courses. He expressed disagreement with proposals to shorten law school to two years, noting that there is just so much law out there to learn. He noted, for example, that he never took bankruptcy during law school, joking that he’s “flying blind” when he hears bankruptcy cases.

Interestingly enough, AS urged students to take comparative law. Isn’t he not supposed to like that whole “foreign law” thing?

The event closed with a question that seemed to come from Doug Cox himself: “What is your favorite opera?”

Justice Scalia, whose love of opera is well-known, hesitated for a moment, describing the question as “impossible to answer.” He eventually cited his Sicilian heritage and mentioned an opera whose name we did not catch. He then started to hum a few bars from the opening, which was a bit odd, but not unpleasant; he seems to have a good ear.

Being serenaded by a Supreme Court justice: a lovely end to a lovely evening.

Update: We’ve confirmed with others in attendance that the opera mentioned by Justice Scalia was Cavalleria Rusticana (as suggested in the comments).

Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges [Thomson/West]
Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges [Amazon]
An Evening with Justice Antonin Scalia [Federalist Society]