������Ƶ

Here in Hawaii, the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stirred many emotions and initiated many conversations, especially with the students and faculty at the William Richardson School of Law, where the late Scalia visited and gave a lecture in February 2014.

Over 150 people filled the law school to hear Scalia, who is often referred to as the most prominent legal thinker of his generation, share his opinion on a variety of issues that included��gay marriage, abortion and the death penalty.

Scalia’s death also stirred up many emotions for me, as a 21 year old Native Hawaiian student. It brought me back to my encounter with��him��at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

On Feb. 11, 2015, my cohort from the Native American Political Leadership Program at The George Washington University had the opportunity to visit the U.S. Supreme Court and sit down with the associate justice.

My encounter with Scalia consisted of an inquiry regarding the annexation of Hawaii to the United States in 1898 and its relation to the U.S. Constitution.

As I sit here, almost one year to the date later, I look back to the question that I put to Scalia.

As I reflect on the question, I feel that it was one that was filled with the much frustration. At that time, I was an eager 20-year-old trying to navigate the world of politics and trying to find answers to many of the questions that are constantly brought up in our Hawaiian communities

I felt that by asking Scalia the question that his response would reflect the American jurisprudence. His response was as expected, the standard non-legal but politically correct answer, that Hawaii was annexed, period!

I left the Supreme Court that day furious, discouraged, disappointed and offended. These emotions prompted me to write an article regarding my experience with Scalia. It sparked many conversations and responses in the Hawaiian community.

Many criticized my article, more specifically on the question that I asked for its lack of any “real” legal analysis and substance. However, my intent of the article was not to provide any legal analysis of his response but to document the surreal experience that I had with a Supreme Court Justice. My goal was to share it with others.

However, weeks later, I was greatly surprised to be contacted by both my internship site and the academic program that I was a part of regarding my article about Scalia.

I was told that “all��networking��events��are private��events��and all of��the��conversations are��off-the-record. No part of��the��conversations should be recorded or transcribed for publication.��Off-the-record��meetings allow��the��speaker to be more candid and perhaps speak more freely than they would otherwise. It is important that we respect��the��privacy of��the��events��to maintain that atmosphere.”

I was extremely shocked. No such policy was ever brought to my attention and I was actually surprised that my article even got as much traction as it did.

Yet, till this day it is still unknown to me whether Scalia ever read my article or how my affiliations in Washington D.C., found about it.

Upon hearing the news of Scalia’s death, I was immediately taken back to my encounter with him. As serious of an event as it was, I am still able to laugh about it and appreciate the opportunity that I had.

Even though I continue to disagree with many of Justice Scalia ‘s opinions on an array of issues, I am still able to respect him as an intellectual heavyweight, a cornerstone of the Supreme Court and as a titanic pillar for those who shared his philosophical beliefs.

I will leave you with the parting advice that Scalia left with the William Richardson Law School:

“Banish from your mind the notion that everything that is stupid is unconstitutional.”