Justice Scalia and "Strict Constructionism"

Here's columnist Adam Cohen from Tuesday's New York Times:

Conservatives claim that they are rising up against "activist judges," who decide cases based on their personal beliefs rather than the law. They frequently point to Justice Antonin Scalia as a model of honest, "strict constructionist" judging. And Justice Scalia has eagerly embraced the hero's role...

Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with.

Now, here's Justice Scalia, in his own words (from a speech delivered March 14, 2005, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars...transcript here):

I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody: judges, professors, lawyers; who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.

I’m not a strict constructionist, despite the introduction. I don’t like the term “strict construction”. I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict”. I do believe however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.

It should be very clear from that statement that Scalia does not "boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads." In fact, he emphatically rejects the label of "strict-constructionist." You'd think that even an "editorial observer" for the New York Times could figure that out.

Adam Cohen obviously needs to do a little more fact-checking. Anyone want to place a bet on whether he will admit his error?