Wow... I know that occurred years ago, but thank you so much for that. That was a tremendous interview on so many levels and for so many reasons. What a wonderful man, Antonin Scolia was. I wish he was still here with us. Thank you.
Thank you for posting this. For someone who is not a student of the Law this was enlightening and educational. Justice Scalia's friends were fortunate to know such a jovial, wise, and tolerant man.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
I think you apprecied somebody for his honesty, knowledge, Ethics, fairness, doing his best to makes people life better, makes a difference in people life that's what I like @ Justice in supreme court certainly that's not Scalia, Alito, Thomas Clarence or their chief Robert they make of Supreme Court smells terrible & the lowest approval ever had...!
"If you want to vote for laws against sexual discrimination, hey, we have things called legislatures! And they vote on things called laws!" PURE GENIUS RIGHT THERE
@@arcanondrum6543 Perhaps you have read it, but more likely not understood it. Definitely have to check the Koolaid catchphrases. You have an esteemed opinion of them. Regardless, the OP is referencing that the Supreme Court does not vote on laws nor enact them, but just considers the constitutionality. Most of the oversteps by government are through the People contracting away their rights. Contract makes the law and if you contract out of the Republic to gain benefits and privileges, then you have the corresponding obligations. And so you don't misunderstand further, you have the right to contract, unlimited. That's protected by the constitution. So, you can't argue constitutionality when you're in a contract. Contract makes the law.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this idiot was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
"Close your eyes and try to imagine substantive due process. It's the opposite of procedural substance if that will help." He was absolutely hilarious.
I am a jurist; not of the Americas, but of the anglosphere. I dont agree with many of his Honour's opinions. But I'd be pleased to have him among my best; on account of him being the best.
Completely ignorant statement. U base that off what? The blind worship of a super elitist who was appointed by the most elite person… When you know absolutely nothing about this human being
Been watching videos / justices' over last 20 yrs.--- finally a good moderator A+....short comments....no interruptions....couple of good quips...no "you know" every 9 seconds....
+Tony Boy (Bud) Not true, Justice Scalia squashed that claim "...get your legislature to enact a law...". Of course most today believe in equal rights for all, but it is not for SCOTUS to decide.
Apple Pie how so? he advocated for the things he believed was how the courts should operate. but even in many instaces, he ruled for results that wasn't inline with his ethics.
It's so great that we have the internet today and can preserve these moments of genius for all times to come. And of all things make it available to all people who might be interested in learning about these things.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the proceedings, arguments, & every single spoken & written word, not to mention orders & decisions & differeing opinions not available in written/printed form. Is it not possible to find almost ANYTHING written &/or published pro or con to those opinions? NO...you don't need to watch lawyers put on a Hollywood act with hair, makeup,...action to make an impression with YOU being the judge. I think the courts need to be courts. The press gets seats, as does the public. You want transparency? THERE IT IS! Most of what happens is behind the scenes. Justice's legal staffs doing research, the Justice's discussing &/or debating the case(s)....how would you "transparency" those?... & WHY WOULD YOU? One grandstanding politician is more than enough & frankly we're drowning in them.
@@daveponder2754 I can only wonder by your comments, who are you? Or who do you think you are? I know you were not a supreme court justice. Maybe you were an attorney? A judge? Just curious because you seem to know so much. All the rest of us need to listen closely to every super important word you say, right? You called Scalia a bozo. I would call you a person with a narcissistic personality disorder, meaning you think great men are bozos and you know so much more than they do or any one else.
Many judges that worked with him they all voted and said that he was by far the best dissent writer of all time. They said the way he wrote things and put words together and described his thoughts text smart combined with creativeness
I have no time for individuals who can't EVOLVE with the times.Completely dismissing anything that was written at a particular time could ever be render obsolete.Imagine as human beings if we treat technology this way.Talk about being stuck in time.
He was a Lincoln Administration era Justice, and placed the common law first and foremost. He was the Supreme Court itself. R.I.P great defender of the Republic.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 Secret Hearings? He has clearly stated that he has nothing against complete audio recordings and transcripts. Everything they have said is available to people like you that want to follow the boring aspects. He just believes that images would be used to package together misinformation and propaganda. He believes that video would change the way attorneys and judges would interact, leading to grandstanding while they compete for "TV time". To hate on this guy for something like his stance on video recording, and then project that onto his other opinions is goofy. You're goofy.
In other words, it sounds to me that he thinks that the due process is not being thoroughly followed in current judiciary and many are excercising pretty lousy actions!
@@gs8099 My take is that the 5th and 14th Amendments preventing the government from depriving us of "life, liberty or property without due process of law" is not much of a protection, if the process we have in place is not itself protective. I guess the joke being that in hell the "process" probably consists of constantly being poked in the butt with an officially-approved pitchfork, while eternally standing up to your knees in the officially-approved hot lava.
The United States would be a better country if Antonin Scalia only wrote Beer Commercials. The US needs Judges who care about Human Rights more than Corporate Rights and who are honest that 2/3 of US States must Ratify New Amendments or Ratify their Repeal.
@@arcanondrum6543 Could you explain your comment about constitutional amendments more? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Like him or hate him, surely Scalia had no confusion about the amendment process.
@@Fuzzybeanerizer Scalia pretended that he was a "guardian of the 2nd Amendment" when in fact, that was a distraction. Lessons can be learned from the Repeal of Prohibition (Prohibition it is said, was something that John D. Rockefeller wanted and funded so that dual-fuel engines, something Henry Ford was making, would be financially stupid to manufacture. Ford stopped making engines that could run on either gasoline or ethanol (cars that Brazil made for decades because they grow a surplus of sugar, which ALSO can be made into ethanol). Rockefeller then let America Repeal Prohibition and go ahead and distract themselves with alcohol again, his wealth was secure.) The Repeal of ANY Amendment is a long process. 2/3 of the States must Ratify it as the very last of several steps. The 2nd Amendment doesn't need protection from pro-corporate hacks like Scalia. By the way, do watch out for the Koch Brothers. Their Heritage Foundation is the actual organization that is picking the Republican Presidential choices for the Supreme Court and though one of the Koch Brothers is dead now, *the organizations they founded want a NEW, VERY CORPORATE FRIENDLY Constitution for The United States.* Like the Patriot Act, which doesn't say "brown people only" and doesn't say "only non-Citizens", the new Constitution is already written and very little is known about it - like the Patriot Act.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 He knew exactly what would happen. Look how the left treats all of Trump's appointments. They make them out to be bad people and that is WITHOUT using out of context soundbites
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
The question and answer starting at 1:12:12 is incredibly profound and I don't think it's appreciated enough. The Apostle Paul spoke about the law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 and Romans 7 how in our efforts to do good, the law creates evil in man. What a mind blowing perspective.
You may have overlooked the verses that begin with and culminate from Romans 7:7 onward, which explicitly assert that the law is both NOT sinful, and that if it were not for the law, what accounts for sin would NOT be knowable, along with an example provided, being that of the coveting of wives. But, in other regards, there are verses therein that I would agree, point to the law in toto not being of much need or use insofar as to its applicability whatsoever, past the shedding of one's mortal coil and regardless of any destination per se thereupon thereafter, but it's still a funny quote and I miss Scalia's wisdom, albeit, we certainly didn't agree on everything whatsoever by any stretch of the imagination, nor would I expect he would be impressed with anyone who claimed to hold exactly and precisely the same opinions as he held.
1:00 How would you characterize the role of the court in today’s society 1:55 Bush vs Gore 3:24 Should SCOTUS shape our notions constitutional interpretation? Or is it strictly a law court 5:30 Televising arguments in front of the SCOTUS 9:10 Should there be term limits for justices? 11:47 - Textualism, Originalism, Enduring Constitution, Evolving Constitution 16:14 The 14th amendment 18:34 When original meaning is in doubt or unknown 20:00 When Scalia and Thomas disagreed 23:40 Congress and Commerce
I’ve always wondered what motivates people to put time stamps on long form videos like this. They’re helpful to everyone else but what do you get out of it
@@wc6046 Ive always wondered what type of psychosis you have for making a PETULANT comments like that! I wonder what you get out of making INSOLENT comment under an anonymous youtube account.
1:16:42 ''...uh....''; Here a great man takes a long pause and loses himself in the memories of a great woman. The humanity of this authentic leader gives us similar pause as well.
I'm glad I took the time to listen to this. It's vastly improved my understanding of Scalia and his approach to law and jurisprudence. Can't say I agree with a number of his points about originalism or vulgarity, but I appreciate how he draws a clear separation between the scope of the Supreme Court versus legislative functions. Anyone here know any resources where Scalia more specifically defines his views on stare decisis? I'm still a little fuzzy on how this fits into his legal philosophy.
Scalia wrote an essay called "A Matter of Interpretation". It was published into a book with responses from other legal minds and then his response to them. But you can find just the essay online if you search for that title and "pdf". That's probably the best source you could find. I'm not going to do it justice here, but his concern is that *stare decisis* turns law into a game. The written law becomes secondary as the primary goal for an attorney is finding a prior case that will yield a favorable comparison. And this has the cascading effect of adding new unwritten layers of law as each decision becomes a new precedent.
Antonin Scalia was simply the greatest supreme court justice who ever lived..no person ever truly understood the constitution and law like Justice Scalia.. period
The best answer Justic Scalia gave when asked " What is your most proudest achievement," " My Family, They are the most important to me.' Well spoken as always Rest in peace Sir. Us traditionalist sure miss you
@@jonathandnicholson could you elaborate on this? Doesn’t common law itself as a context for the American system suggest precedence is inextricably linked with interpretation and application of law? Know it’s been a while, but was curious about this comment. Thanks!
@@georgeluke6382 Right, precedent: 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' Sorry if that is patronising, but best we use the same definition. The American legal system is deeply rooted in England and even uses English decisions when no precedent in US Law exists. I am going to use a Biblical example as an abstract example rather than a religious example ('the law is a teacher' kind-of-thing)... Say you are a woman (and, this is important: just a woman, but one woman and no man) in Jerusalem convicted of adultery waiting to be put to death... Then someone hears her cry of anguish and takes that as an appeal which is heard by The Judge who, knowing the facts of the case, announces His judgement 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone' and then says to the woman 'Now, you, leave and sin no more' (I cannot remember the exact words, but that is the ipsissum vox from the Gospel of Luke). Now, was Christ, in Biblical law, right to do that? Without looking at anything else other than according to Deuteronomy 22:22-24? Also, consider: Genesis 1:26, Genesis 4:7, Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:28-31, Exodus 23:1-3 and Deuteronomy 16:18 which can be basically summarised as Genesis 1:1-3. Sorry to be annoying, but what do you mean by 'common law' exactly? The English common law is the law that applies to all. However, some people (post-English Enlightenment) have interpreted this as judge-made law as opposed to king-made law. However, kings sat in judgement as the final (Earthly) court of appeal and for trials of the nobility because, like the judges of Israel in the time of Joshua, the nobility were lords over set areas of land (the earldom of Lancashire was a bit like the land ascribed to the Tribe of Benjamin or whatever - language changes from place to place as we are told in Genesis Eleven) and their purpose was to exercise justice on the as well as general security. This is premised on the idea that the sovereign cannot be put on trial by the people subjected to the sovereign (that being a matter of logic because then the sovereign (ultimate authority) would not be the sovereign. The peasant was judged by the earl, the earl by the king and the king by God. This gets a little more complicated by Canon Law during the reign of King John, but we can leave that to one side and I do not want to get too much into the theology. However, the Anglo-Saxon/Norman/Plantagenet legal system of England is deeply rooted in the Torah and the wider Old Testament (if not the Talmud as well). Alan Dershowitz also quotes the Book of Daniel being the root of the adversarial legal system. The current English legal (Homicide Act 1957) definition is textually the same as the Talmudic definition of murder. Are/Were you a member of the Dershow or Triggernometry Locals groups? Your profile pic looks familiar (or I am confusing you with someone else), but the name seems different.
@@jonathandnicholson Not patronizing at all! Thank you for the clarity in your response. I really appreciate your second paragraph- and would love resources on where to learn more! I'd say to your first, actually, yes, that's the point. Christ was the only right law interpreter at that point, specifically because *both* guilty parties had to be put to death in the Law. The fact that only one was caught in the act, and seemingly, everyone else was guilty of sin with her or sin of a like kind, meant Christ alone was qualified to apply the Law's penalty to her. Since she hadn't been brought in a way consistent with the Law, it was consistent with the Law to let her go- I think most theonomists/reconstructionists who would think through that passage would say the same, but let me know if I'm wrong- Rushdooney, Bahnsen, would be guys to look at there. On the Common Law, you definitely know more than me! I know only a bit- Alfred via the implementation of the Deuteronomic code gives the foundation of the English system, the Magna Carta gives a set of precedents with King John in terms of how lesser magistrates understand their relation to the highest magistrate, and William and Mary cement parliamentary supremacy after the back and forth for years in the supremacy of the English monarch and the powers of Parliament. Any place you'd recommend looking to understand more? I'd have said common law wasn't a book, but a series of decisions by the English people to regard previous precedents and a sense of the rights of Englishmen to be represented by their rulers in the decisions made on their behalf, consistent with articulations like Lex Rex, or the Magdeburg Confession. Given your articulation, would you say Common Law as you understand it is precedent-less? Or, do we agree there? Or, are you saying that depending on which stream of Common Law you swim in to get across the Atlantic to American jurisprudence, there may be no precedent to look to in a given articulation of a law? If the latter, I agree, but, there might be a network of precedents that lay a pathway of permissible principles that could ground a number of applications, or enable the judiciary to simply stand back and let the legislature legislate further, perhaps? In the biblical analogy you used, there were examples of applications of the law for adultery that trended towards merciful dispensations even relative to the law for adultery, even after public condemnation and self-incrimination (David and Bathsheba- I don't interpret that story as David raping Bathsheba, but I do see David as the primary perpetrator of murder, and of using his position as king illicitly to seduce a married woman who didn't cry out in the pallace/town- given that, it seems clear if he and Bathsheba had sinned in that way prior to Uriah's death, apparently YHWH didn't demand the Law be applied with a maximum penalty - which means there was precedent in the Jewish narrative for not applying the Law to a convicted adulterer with the maximum penalty, in addition to the irregularity and bad form in bringing only one perpetrator to public execution; another is Jesus' own birth- the narrative indicates Joseph was a righteous man for wanting to divorce Marry quietly, prior to the revelation he received from the angel, which suggests the biblical authors believed OT Scripture didn't have to be interpreted to mean the death penalty for adulterers period for the ethics of God's people)
As an Independent voter with some liberal leanings, I expected not to like this justice very much. I actually enjoyed listening to this and I think he is a fairly reasonable thinker.
Understanding takes time. Ginsburg and Scalia were certainly not enemies. There's not a justice on the Court who is anyone's enemy. It's easy to confuse legislation with the practice of law, I suppose, but they're not the same. Scalia was a brilliant jurist.
I admire you immediately, being a conservative who does the same, loved the Breyer/Scalia conversation on here, and , of course, loved Scalia and Ginsberg's true friendship. -Cheers!
Justice Scalia is one of the few who truly comprehended the essential nature of a Supreme Court - not to act as a political body by taking the evolutionary interpretation, but to enforce and preserve the Constitution as it was written. As he said "It's lawyers' work", not congressmen's work.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Love Scalia's wisdom and humor even though I might disagree with his opinions. He cared about the Country. Over my lifetime, I have learned I long Chose to learn and respect well thought out views well beyond agreement / concurrence.
17:00 he should of clarified that if the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it etc, that this does not apply to the federal government who is only authorized to do what is explicitly expressed.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. He showed that he feared American Citizens having access to the Court using the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" as an excuse. Americans may be right about their contempt if the day to day activities deserve to be held so. If I call someone, for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but shear ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
+Masooda Stratigakis Great thinkers, absolutely, Great soul, I'm embarrassed we are from the same part of Italy. He has truly destroyed millions upon millions of lives. We had two geniuses of Italian'Americans in Public Service pass away during the past 13 months pass away. Antonin and Mario Cuomo. Mario used his gift to help million, while Antonin used his gift to destroy millions. I saw him speak in person once and he was so engaging and likable, that I left leaving that maybe I was wrong about him. Later that day I went into my law library and looked up not only his decisions, but cases where he wrote a dissent or for the majority, and within 45 minutes I was able to shake this temporary trance he had put me under by speaking so eloquently, intelligently and charasmatically. That is why he was so dangerous. He had the outward appearance of being intellectually gifted and great likability but when I heard he died, I was glad not bc he was dead, but that his completely screwed up view of the Constitution and how to interpret it would no longer damage the lives of so many.
@@michaelprete3083 what about his opinions are so damaging They fall in line with respecting democracy and preserving the Constitution as opposed to changing it unilaterally through evolutionism
You're right, he WAS fat. He also led the Supreme Court's maneuvers to ignore the Recount in Florida (something they had no legal jurisdiction over) and declare, 5 to 4 thate loser George W. Bush was President. Gore won the Recount a few weeks later. Then, Bush picked Supreme Court Judges. Yaa! Fascism is so 'immense' in our lives now.
@@amardizz821 Wow, TH-cam ignored your reply and didn't bother to notify me. ANYONE who admires Scalia is either a corporate fascist or uninformed about Scalia.
@@arcanondrum6543 corporate fascist😂😂😂you don't have the story correct about Al Gore. I voted for him and was one of the voters caught up in the Florida hanging chad chaos. SCOTUS was correct - Gore's lawsuit was a joke. He and his attorneys screwed up and unfortunately we got stuck with a war monster. I also voted for Kerry, got stuck for another 4 years with the war monger. Scalia was one of the best justices in modern history followed by the brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas.
At 18:00 he said: legislator should vote for abortion if you want it because it is not in the constitution. It is amazing to me that this is exactly what Trudeau the father said to women groups...i.e., they ought to convince their fellow Canadian about it. Trudeau was an ultra-liberal by American standards. Yet he said the same thing as Scalia.......Amazing.
I was surprised by this because he doesn't even seem to consider it's a defense of life issue -one of the most cherished human rights in the constitution.
@@nancytrombley1731 He’s looking at it from a legal and legislative standpoint. Not his own moral preference. By suggesting that legislators need to vote to put those laws in place he’s also saying that there’s nothing in the constitution currently to uphold laws such as that without getting them properly legislated.
I don't know Justice Scalia at all, but I know he is a Supreme Court Judge for long years with much experience of the laws. I listened carefully what does he talk about and try to understand and to think if everything he says making sense or not and if I can understand well with what does he mean. Actually, I believe I understand what does he talk about and I believe he's a very experienced and the Justice of the priciples. Because he is talking about the rules of the laws only. He believes that we only follow the rules of the laws by our own constitutions, not by public opinions. Strictly say, there is nothing wrong with that and it is absolutely correct for any Judiciary of any countries to do things by the constitutions only. Because the Judiciary branch's duty is make the judgement by the rules of the laws only and not making the new laws to suit for any public opinions. In the other words, they can only make the judgement of dividing the wrong from the right by our existing constitutions. They are not supposed to make the new laws or twist the existing laws to fit the public opinions. Because the existing laws are there for us to either follow or stop, due to the reason of either it is wrong by conflicting to the existing laws or it's right by exactly what the constitutions says. Moreover, if more than 75% of the people really excited something new, then it's up to Congress' power to decide to add the new laws or not. Still, before or after the new laws be confirmed, the existing laws should serperseed anything, but to follow. This is basically what he is talking about and it has nothing wrong with the principals of the concept of the America's rules of the laws. Moreover, I believe this is really important for our Gov't's practice of the laws of the constitutions and the principals of the leadership. Because if we don't follow our constitutions strictly, you add one new law today, he twist one law Tomorrow, she add one new phrase the day after tomorrow, then our judiciary systems will be screwed up without the prime principals. As a country without the stable and correct judicial systems, it can be very risky. Because this is what the rules of the laws meant. America is well-known for the country of the laws. It's always important to follow up with the rules of the laws and go by it firmly to maitain our country's in order good society's good model as historically we always do to avoid future mistakes to happen again. Also we should be united together by most generous mind of the forgiving heart and the spirit of the healing the sickness instead of hitting one to death with the one baseball bat. Hopefully the tomorrow will be bright to all of us. God will always stand by America and Americans for his prosperity. I believe Gov.Bush understands the importance of the unity, importance of the foreign policies, importance of the priciples of the strength will make the peace, the principals of the America's and the foundations of the freedoms and entrepreneurship, the importance of the constitutions and the heart of the gold. He is a good choice for our country's future brightness.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Why are there "context" boxes underneath all videos on youtube with Scalia in them but none for any of the other justices? I checked 10 videos and every one of them has it.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
We are never to know. Like so many tragic and mysterious things in this country. How many mysterious deaths in the political realm have gone uninvestigated with no autopsy? We have no idea. What always surprises me is that the victims family doesn't say or do anything. No questions, no autopsy, just total acceptance of the explanation given. Do you suppose the families are threatened (promised) with the death of the remainder of their family? Ambassador to Bengazzi. What was that really about? Who's to blame for every death there? Who is really responsible? There is the young man killed in an alley in a bad area of Washington DC Seth Rich. There was a suspicious and strange interpretation of what happened to him. 27 years old . And there are more. Suspicious deaths of men who were going to testify against the Clinton's who suddenly die???? These stories don't even scratch thecl surface of political murders. Scary frightening !
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
What an all around great human being. I can easily relate to his way of thinking. It's always directed toward the only true honest way of looking at anything. No sugar-coating the truth..that deserves respect.
Oh, the Alito "Big lie" when it comes to substantive due process and purposely misinterpreting Washington v Glucksberg. To see the correct interpretation, read the opinion in McDonald v Chicago....The person who wrote this opinion knew what he was doing. Oh...that ALSO was Alito!! Alito LIED within Dobbs
Gun owners were afforded approximates twice the range of fundamental due process rights in McDonald as Women were in Dobbs...hmm...wonder why and how that happened?
Alito is either a moron for not being able to get his argument to work otherwise, or is extremely arrogant for not changing his argument after its woes were leaked
@@davezick800 probably because gun rights are fundamental (in that they are codified in the Bill of Rights), and the right to an abortion is not fundamental (not mentioned in the constitution nor is there a history of that right)
@@macgyvernewton1630 I don't even know which comment of mine that you are commenting on lol....there are so many comments to wade through! As regards to "fundamental rights" : Fundamental Due Process rights are "objectively" either "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition" (Washington v Glucksberg). The Alito opinion in Dobbs held that the right to an abortion is the latter but refrained to opine on the former, which punted the "implicit" question onto the States when traditionally this responsibility was a federal protection against government incursion upon our rights. In the case McDonald v Chicago, for example, which occurred in 2010 and which incorporated the second amendment into the States, the same justice who wrote the Dobbs opinion- Alito - held that, according the the above case- Wa v Glucksberg- a fundamental due process right is EITHER "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" OR "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition- a much more relaxed and lenient version )and logically distinct from) the version which he used in Dobbs, which was AND rather than OR...thus Alito gave twice as many rights to guns as to Women
*HOLY CRAP! If someone found an original document that proved Marbury was wrongly decided, he'd have ignored it? I didn't see that coming! I just realized that I'm aligned much more with Clarence Thomas than with Anonin Scalia? Wow, what a day **_this_** is turning out to be!*
I was never fan of originalist interpretation of the Constitution until listening to Justice Scalia in this video. He makes perfect sense, we create too many expectations outside the original Constitution. Ex. Sex discrimination laws can be written by Congress, but it's not in the Constitution, so why would it be unconstitutional?
It's saddening, and rather frighting that such a brilliant legal mind has ceased to be. How much knowledge has been lost, and continues to be lost with the passage of time. . . .? Whether or not you agreed with his decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, you have to respect his decision making process. That's what so many people don't realize. People today who view this man, and others in the Supreme Court as some 'barrier to progress' don't even understand what the role of the Supreme Court is. If you disrespect Justice Scalia simply because you don't agree with his decisions, you're disrespecting the Constitutional Standing of the United States, and have therefor lost my respect.
+TheWayWeSee, not sure how much "knowledge has been lost" since he was on the SCOTUS for almost 30 years. He has written plenty enough opinions to leave his mark.
"How much knowledge has been lost, and continues to be lost with the passage of time?" Add "how much common sense and applied reason" to your question, and the answer is: a freaking lot.
Him being smart has nothing to do with him being Republican or you be Democrat. He is simply someone who thinks a lot logically based on something written as constitution and what it meant imho.
The one thing I wish I could have asked Mr. Scalia is about stare decisis, in that does he not think it possible that the Court creates it more by the cases they reject rather than the ones they accept and rule on. If the Court accepts one case on subject X and never takes up another for 100 years then they could claim stare decisis at that point and refuse to change their position, simply based on not wanting to rock their own boat
You received your reincarnation from Trump His men will be good but ACB will be baby AS may he Rest In Peace. 5 year response. Yea at 50 I need to hear him speak to remember what we’re trying to save with these nuts about to transform America.
It's over a year that he's dead...I'm not even from the US and I still feel like I was kicked in the guts by his loss. Things just won't be the same without him. Sucks to be us.
As a critic of substantive due process and an expansive natural law theorist on the 9th amendment he was a brake on runaway nihilistic libertarians . Though he didnt say it here he very much believed in the balance of rights vs responsibilities . One persons rights may end where anothers begins . As a referee in those fights he was very much a federalist.
There needs to be an originalist on the court, in fact, they all should be originalist. The departing position should be once we agree what the meaning was at the time from there forward it becomes legislative. To have judges legislating from the bench eventually ends in anarchy. I mean think about it, do we really want judges to make those decisions?
This man's right to (life) liberty and the pursuit of happiness was protected by government the same as Levoy Finnicum. Nice to hear from our Supreme Court Justice Scalia thankyou.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Even at age 50, I never really understood the travesty of an undemocratic court making policy decisions until watching this. Democracy is VARY flexible, but courts are not by nature democratic. So to have a court making policy decisions is really no different than having a dictator making policy decisions.
Stopped listening at 3:03’ after hearing Scalia try to rationalize Bush v Gore by saying not everyone would have been happy with either or any ruling in that case. This from a justice who boldly states that the goal of SC decisions is not to make people happy. Fair enough. But, what about making the correct decision? In this specific case, is not election integrity and its preservation a primary goal of the SC through its interpretation of the Constitution?
@@Billpeterson4785 , I think the point is exactly the opposite, that critical thinking requires making judgments based on the best evidence. I am not unfamiliar with Scalia and his judicial record, and I find his reasoning ability overrated. I was hoping in this video I might find something new from him. I didn’t, so no need to waste my time.
Legislatures legislate , judicial review lawyers work is done by appellate judges, and setting public policy and directing government actions is an executive function. Sometimes as with all money culled and appropriated and spent there are major differences of opinion within coordinate branches by design or for political gain. Straying out of ones lane for checks and balances should be done with greatest caution and restraint.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
People should not accept unconstitutional rulings. The constitution limits federal government. Why would a federally appointed body like the Supreme Court have the authority to reinterpret the constitution to remove people's rights without a convention of states and constitutional ammendment.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. He showed that he feared American Citizens having access to the Court using the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" as an excuse. Americans may be right about their contempt if the day to day activities deserve to be held so. If I call someone, for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but shear ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
I’m no great fan of Scalia, but I admire his wit and quick legal mind. He is a fantastic lawyer. But I couldn’t help notice some inconsistencies which he handled with grace. Did anyone catch his contradictions on discussing “substantive due process”--asking us to close our eyes to imagine the unimaginable existence of substantive due process to only admit that he has also employed the term in his own opinions?
2:23 - What should you have said in the Bush v Gore Case? We don't have jurisdiction! Send it back to the Supreme Court of Florida! Not doing that is a HUGE BLEMISH on the history of the Supreme Court of the United States!
As a liberal, I really enjoyed watching the late Justice Scalia speak. He was an able, eloquent, and engaging representative for the conservative view of constitutional interpretation. I vigorously disagree with what I view as his ossified notion of holding textual purity over social progress but I understand and appreciate his argumentation both intellectually and in the spirit of ongoing democratic debate. In reading the comments here it does seem both left and right badly interprets Scalia's legacy as being an ideological activist rather than as a constitutional scholar in the traditional conservative sense, hence the consistent framing by commenters as "the left HATES the Constitution" or "Scalia was an evil ideologue". Both perspectives are wrong and Scalia would most certainly have castigated those who hold such simplistic views.
Part of the reasoning I think, is that his arguments are logically rigid, and expose inconsistencies in our beliefs. For example, I support pro-choice prior to first trimester, and I'm pro life after first trimester. My view is not in the constitution on abortion. So when a supreme court judge has to make a decision on such a case, neither the judge nor I, can reinterpret the current constitution to mean what I believe about abortion. Because if you allow such things to happen, then that means all reinterpretations of the current constitution are valid, including ones where you can euthanize a new born child if you don't want to keep it. Yes the position sounds absurd, but if you accept the premise of reinterpretation - how do you decide which interpretations are more correct than others? Well now you have to assume some sort of moral system to judge interpretations, and a reasonable person might say 'minimize violations of existing rights', but a postmodernist can use moral relativism to say that there is no such thing as morals - and so you are back again to the logical inconsistency - if all reinterpretation is valid, if all moral codes are valid - how should decisions be made? Who decides which interpretations or morals are more valid than others? So as much as I don't like that my ethical views on things are not in the constitution, I have to accept that no majority or congress has voted to put my views in. I don't see any other way around the logical gaps in my beliefs. If I refuse and say 'to hell with the constitution! this is what pro-life/pro-choice should be!' then I am arguing for the living constitution, which means I take on all the above inconsistencies in my logic and beliefs. Either I am a tyrant that wants to force my own interpretation of the constitution on others, or I accept the rulings on abortion that I disagree with.
Your overexcited utterances reveal ur lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles which Scalia is so far over anyone's head that it's frankly embarrassing..he even admits originalism isn't perfect and no one can predict new phenomena..but u have to allow the constitution to stand for something..or stand for nothing..the constitution is a legal document..it says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say
Legal genius. One can sit down and listen to Justice Scalia for hours without getting tired
Wow... I know that occurred years ago, but thank you so much for that. That was a tremendous interview on so many levels and for so many reasons. What a wonderful man, Antonin Scolia was. I wish he was still here with us. Thank you.
A huge privilege to listen to one of the world’s greatest ever judges. RIP Antonin Scalia
All the gullible whiners loved that pos
Thank you for posting this. For someone who is not a student of the Law this was enlightening and educational. Justice Scalia's friends were fortunate to know such a jovial, wise, and tolerant man.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 Thanks for proving his point that some people are just too daft and bestial to understand his work 😃
I think you apprecied somebody for his honesty, knowledge, Ethics, fairness, doing his best to makes people life better, makes a difference in people life that's what I like @ Justice in supreme court certainly that's not Scalia, Alito, Thomas Clarence or their chief Robert they make of Supreme Court smells terrible & the lowest approval ever had...!
@@daveponder2754w2 zee details ff zee❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😊❤❤😊❤
‘I don’t know, I’ll have to think about it’
Wisest words I’ve heard in any interview for a long time. Not enough of that any more
There is nothing "wise" about "secret hearings
RIP Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia :-(.
"If you want to vote for laws against sexual discrimination, hey, we have things called legislatures! And they vote on things called laws!"
PURE GENIUS RIGHT THERE
You have very low standards.
@@arcanondrum6543 You have not read the Constitution.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand how the justice system works
@@familyfungi Go get some more catch phrases James, maybe you can just quote Kool-aid commercials from now on.
@@arcanondrum6543 Perhaps you have read it, but more likely not understood it. Definitely have to check the Koolaid catchphrases. You have an esteemed opinion of them.
Regardless, the OP is referencing that the Supreme Court does not vote on laws nor enact them, but just considers the constitutionality. Most of the oversteps by government are through the People contracting away their rights. Contract makes the law and if you contract out of the Republic to gain benefits and privileges, then you have the corresponding obligations.
And so you don't misunderstand further, you have the right to contract, unlimited. That's protected by the constitution. So, you can't argue constitutionality when you're in a contract. Contract makes the law.
He has such a soothing straightfoward delivery. It's a pleasure to hear him relay his thoughts.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this idiot was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 wooooahhh! just take it easy, man
I love Justice Scalia's candor and humor. A truly great man who will be missed by the intellectual world.
"Close your eyes and try to imagine substantive due process. It's the opposite of procedural substance if that will help."
He was absolutely hilarious.
What are you talking about? This mfer ruined America with his fat right politics.
Scalia is the man who understands the Constitution like no other person. He is one of the greatest legal minds that America will ever know.
I am a jurist; not of the Americas, but of the anglosphere. I dont agree with many of his Honour's opinions. But I'd be pleased to have him among my best; on account of him being the best.
Completely ignorant statement. U base that off what? The blind worship of a super elitist who was appointed by the most elite person… When you know absolutely nothing about this human being
Hon. Scalia is not just a genius but, he had not lost his humorous side. Love this show!!!
Been watching videos / justices' over last 20 yrs.--- finally a good moderator A+....short comments....no interruptions....couple of good quips...no "you know" every 9 seconds....
Excellent interview. We need another Originalist on the Supreme Court.
why? To deny you your rights as a woman? Funny
+Dubious Claims- I can't stand TYT. Cent is an arrogant asshole. Why would you think I am a fan of them?
You got one
Neil Gorsuch.
Tony Boy oh good. tony's here and knows what's in the interest of women better than they do because that's not pretentious or condescending at all.
"enduring constitution rather than an evolving constitution". perfectly put.
Only if you don't believe in equal rights for women or racial minorities.
+Tony Boy (Bud) Not true, Justice Scalia squashed that claim "...get your legislature to enact a law...". Of course most today believe in equal rights for all, but it is not for SCOTUS to decide.
ddylla85 So what's the point of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?
Maybe he put it "perfectly", but he was a hypocrite.
Apple Pie how so? he advocated for the things he believed was how the courts should operate. but even in many instaces, he ruled for results that wasn't inline with his ethics.
It's so great that we have the internet today and can preserve these moments of genius for all times to come. And of all things make it available to all people who might be interested in learning about these things.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Back up everything
@@daveponder2754 Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the proceedings, arguments, & every single spoken & written word, not to mention orders & decisions & differeing opinions not available in written/printed form. Is it not possible to find almost ANYTHING written &/or published pro or con to those opinions? NO...you don't need to watch lawyers put on a Hollywood act with hair, makeup,...action to make an impression with YOU being the judge. I think the courts need to be courts. The press gets seats, as does the public. You want transparency? THERE IT IS! Most of what happens is behind the scenes. Justice's legal staffs doing research, the Justice's discussing &/or debating the case(s)....how would you "transparency" those?... & WHY WOULD YOU? One grandstanding politician is more than enough & frankly we're drowning in them.
@@daveponder2754 I can only wonder by your comments, who are you? Or who do you think you are? I know you were not a supreme court justice. Maybe you were an attorney? A judge? Just curious because you seem to know so much. All the rest of us need to listen closely to every super important word you say, right? You called Scalia a bozo. I would call you a person with a narcissistic personality disorder, meaning you think great men are bozos and you know so much more than they do or any one else.
If you think this guy is worth respect or is a genius you don't know much about SCOTUS... I'm sure, if there's a hell, that POS is burning in it.
Justice Scalia was one of the kind and he will be remembered and missed anytime anywhere.
I may not agree with him on a lot of issues, but he certainly was a great intellect and fascinating to listen to.
How to you disagree a law is a law his job is to interpret law not make law that’s for congress
@@cjgazerro622 An interpretation of the constitutionality of a law is just that...an interpretation.
Many judges that worked with him they all voted and said that he was by far the best dissent writer of all time. They said the way he wrote things and put words together and described his thoughts text smart combined with creativeness
Truly one of the greats. RIP Scalia.
Tony Boy Take your gutter comments to the lefty blogs. No place for it here.
+davo171 He's not wrong though. Even you can't lie and say it.
Zebra Cake He's got no class, take it to moveon.org or something.
I have no time for individuals who can't EVOLVE with the times.Completely dismissing anything that was written at a particular time could ever be render obsolete.Imagine as human beings if we treat technology this way.Talk about being stuck in time.
flex master False dilemma, boy.
He was a Lincoln Administration era Justice, and placed the common law first and foremost. He was the Supreme Court itself. R.I.P great defender of the Republic.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 Well he seems on point about thr American public. You guys elected Donald Trump after all 😂😂😂
@@daveponder2754
Secret Hearings?
He has clearly stated that he has nothing against complete audio recordings and transcripts. Everything they have said is available to people like you that want to follow the boring aspects.
He just believes that images would be used to package together misinformation and propaganda. He believes that video would change the way attorneys and judges would interact, leading to grandstanding while they compete for "TV time".
To hate on this guy for something like his stance on video recording, and then project that onto his other opinions is goofy.
You're goofy.
"In hell, due process will be rigorously observed."
I never heard that quote before!
In other words, it sounds to me that he thinks that the due process is not being thoroughly followed in current judiciary and many are excercising pretty lousy actions!
@@gs8099 My take is that the 5th and 14th Amendments preventing the government from depriving us of "life, liberty or property without due process of law" is not much of a protection, if the process we have in place is not itself protective. I guess the joke being that in hell the "process" probably consists of constantly being poked in the butt with an officially-approved pitchfork, while eternally standing up to your knees in the officially-approved hot lava.
The United States would be a better country if Antonin Scalia only wrote Beer Commercials. The US needs Judges who care about Human Rights more than Corporate Rights and who are honest that 2/3 of US States must Ratify New Amendments or Ratify their Repeal.
@@arcanondrum6543 Could you explain your comment about constitutional amendments more? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Like him or hate him, surely Scalia had no confusion about the amendment process.
@@Fuzzybeanerizer Scalia pretended that he was a "guardian of the 2nd Amendment" when in fact, that was a distraction. Lessons can be learned from the Repeal of Prohibition (Prohibition it is said, was something that John D. Rockefeller wanted and funded so that dual-fuel engines, something Henry Ford was making, would be financially stupid to manufacture. Ford stopped making engines that could run on either gasoline or ethanol (cars that Brazil made for decades because they grow a surplus of sugar, which ALSO can be made into ethanol). Rockefeller then let America Repeal Prohibition and go ahead and distract themselves with alcohol again, his wealth was secure.)
The Repeal of ANY Amendment is a long process. 2/3 of the States must Ratify it as the very last of several steps. The 2nd Amendment doesn't need protection from pro-corporate hacks like Scalia.
By the way, do watch out for the Koch Brothers. Their Heritage Foundation is the actual organization that is picking the Republican Presidential choices for the Supreme Court and though one of the Koch Brothers is dead now, *the organizations they founded want a NEW, VERY CORPORATE FRIENDLY Constitution for The United States.* Like the Patriot Act, which doesn't say "brown people only" and doesn't say "only non-Citizens", the new Constitution is already written and very little is known about it - like the Patriot Act.
Antonin Scalia is one of a great line of judges that are my favorites’.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
@@daveponder2754 dude, your copying and pasting of the same comment 🤮🤮🤮
Your boy is a great big bigot ... Glad he's gone along with rbg
@@daveponder2754 He knew exactly what would happen. Look how the left treats all of Trump's appointments. They make them out to be bad people and that is WITHOUT using out of context soundbites
JUSTICE SCALIA, IT WAS AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO MEET YOU, IN 1993, WHEN YOU LECTURED AT OLE MISS LAW CENTER. I was a 1L law student.
@YoYO Semite it means first year law student
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
I’m jealous! I’m in Brooklyn Law School. The amount of hate for Scalia is kinda funny to me.
@Edgar Poe How did you know about Scalia's throat?
One of the best legal minds this country has ever seen. R.I.P Justice Scalia.
The question and answer starting at 1:12:12 is incredibly profound and I don't think it's appreciated enough. The Apostle Paul spoke about the law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 and Romans 7 how in our efforts to do good, the law creates evil in man. What a mind blowing perspective.
You may have overlooked the verses that begin with and culminate from Romans 7:7 onward, which explicitly assert that the law is both NOT sinful, and that if it were not for the law, what accounts for sin would NOT be knowable, along with an example provided, being that of the coveting of wives.
But, in other regards, there are verses therein that I would agree, point to the law in toto not being of much need or use insofar as to its applicability whatsoever, past the shedding of one's mortal coil and regardless of any destination per se thereupon thereafter, but it's still a funny quote and I miss Scalia's wisdom, albeit, we certainly didn't agree on everything whatsoever by any stretch of the imagination, nor would I expect he would be impressed with anyone who claimed to hold exactly and precisely the same opinions as he held.
Great interview
1:00 How would you characterize the role of the court in today’s society
1:55 Bush vs Gore
3:24 Should SCOTUS shape our notions constitutional interpretation? Or is it strictly a law court
5:30 Televising arguments in front of the SCOTUS
9:10 Should there be term limits for justices?
11:47 - Textualism, Originalism, Enduring Constitution, Evolving Constitution
16:14 The 14th amendment
18:34 When original meaning is in doubt or unknown
20:00 When Scalia and Thomas disagreed
23:40 Congress and Commerce
I’ve always wondered what motivates people to put time stamps on long form videos like this. They’re helpful to everyone else but what do you get out of it
@@wc6046 For when I come back to this video, I have a reference to the topics that really interested me.
@@wc6046 Ive always wondered what type of psychosis you have for making a PETULANT comments like that! I wonder what you get out of making INSOLENT comment under an anonymous youtube account.
@@jomacron1106 Everything okay at home, joey?
@@wc6046 skip your meds again? lol!
The best Justice in my 64 year lifetime, so deeply missed.
The best in my 73. His support for original intent, is what got him killed. Obama wanted him gone.
Let’s find out how he really died and why was he at what kind of ranch?????
Ditto, Anthony!
@JOHN DOUGLAS you've got the wrong justice, pumpkin. You're thinking of the late Ruth!
Too bad the Obama regime had him Murdered !!!! Lost of a great Mind for the Constitution !!!!
1:16:42 ''...uh....''; Here a great man takes a long pause and loses himself in the memories of a great woman. The humanity of this authentic leader gives us similar pause as well.
I'm glad I took the time to listen to this. It's vastly improved my understanding of Scalia and his approach to law and jurisprudence. Can't say I agree with a number of his points about originalism or vulgarity, but I appreciate how he draws a clear separation between the scope of the Supreme Court versus legislative functions.
Anyone here know any resources where Scalia more specifically defines his views on stare decisis? I'm still a little fuzzy on how this fits into his legal philosophy.
Scalia wrote an essay called "A Matter of Interpretation". It was published into a book with responses from other legal minds and then his response to them. But you can find just the essay online if you search for that title and "pdf". That's probably the best source you could find.
I'm not going to do it justice here, but his concern is that *stare decisis* turns law into a game. The written law becomes secondary as the primary goal for an attorney is finding a prior case that will yield a favorable comparison. And this has the cascading effect of adding new unwritten layers of law as each decision becomes a new precedent.
Antonin Scalia was simply the greatest supreme court justice who ever lived..no person ever truly understood the constitution and law like Justice Scalia.. period
@@mitchelll3879 john marshall
The best answer Justic Scalia gave when asked " What is your most proudest achievement,"
" My Family, They are the most important to me.'
Well spoken as always
Rest in peace Sir. Us traditionalist sure miss you
Thanks for sharing. I heard about Scalia and originalism during the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett. I've now learnt more about both.
For sure Scalia is more originalists and understands precedence better. Barrett essentially seems to have forgotten the importance of precedence.
@@easyenetwork2023 I do not much care for precedence. Law done properly should not need precedence.
@@jonathandnicholson could you elaborate on this? Doesn’t common law itself as a context for the American system suggest precedence is inextricably linked with interpretation and application of law?
Know it’s been a while, but was curious about this comment. Thanks!
@@georgeluke6382 Right, precedent: 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' Sorry if that is patronising, but best we use the same definition. The American legal system is deeply rooted in England and even uses English decisions when no precedent in US Law exists. I am going to use a Biblical example as an abstract example rather than a religious example ('the law is a teacher' kind-of-thing)...
Say you are a woman (and, this is important: just a woman, but one woman and no man) in Jerusalem convicted of adultery waiting to be put to death... Then someone hears her cry of anguish and takes that as an appeal which is heard by The Judge who, knowing the facts of the case, announces His judgement 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone' and then says to the woman 'Now, you, leave and sin no more' (I cannot remember the exact words, but that is the ipsissum vox from the Gospel of Luke). Now, was Christ, in Biblical law, right to do that? Without looking at anything else other than according to Deuteronomy 22:22-24? Also, consider: Genesis 1:26, Genesis 4:7, Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:28-31, Exodus 23:1-3 and Deuteronomy 16:18 which can be basically summarised as Genesis 1:1-3.
Sorry to be annoying, but what do you mean by 'common law' exactly? The English common law is the law that applies to all. However, some people (post-English Enlightenment) have interpreted this as judge-made law as opposed to king-made law. However, kings sat in judgement as the final (Earthly) court of appeal and for trials of the nobility because, like the judges of Israel in the time of Joshua, the nobility were lords over set areas of land (the earldom of Lancashire was a bit like the land ascribed to the Tribe of Benjamin or whatever - language changes from place to place as we are told in Genesis Eleven) and their purpose was to exercise justice on the as well as general security. This is premised on the idea that the sovereign cannot be put on trial by the people subjected to the sovereign (that being a matter of logic because then the sovereign (ultimate authority) would not be the sovereign. The peasant was judged by the earl, the earl by the king and the king by God. This gets a little more complicated by Canon Law during the reign of King John, but we can leave that to one side and I do not want to get too much into the theology. However, the Anglo-Saxon/Norman/Plantagenet legal system of England is deeply rooted in the Torah and the wider Old Testament (if not the Talmud as well). Alan Dershowitz also quotes the Book of Daniel being the root of the adversarial legal system. The current English legal (Homicide Act 1957) definition is textually the same as the Talmudic definition of murder.
Are/Were you a member of the Dershow or Triggernometry Locals groups? Your profile pic looks familiar (or I am confusing you with someone else), but the name seems different.
@@jonathandnicholson Not patronizing at all! Thank you for the clarity in your response. I really appreciate your second paragraph- and would love resources on where to learn more!
I'd say to your first, actually, yes, that's the point. Christ was the only right law interpreter at that point, specifically because *both* guilty parties had to be put to death in the Law. The fact that only one was caught in the act, and seemingly, everyone else was guilty of sin with her or sin of a like kind, meant Christ alone was qualified to apply the Law's penalty to her. Since she hadn't been brought in a way consistent with the Law, it was consistent with the Law to let her go- I think most theonomists/reconstructionists who would think through that passage would say the same, but let me know if I'm wrong- Rushdooney, Bahnsen, would be guys to look at there.
On the Common Law, you definitely know more than me! I know only a bit- Alfred via the implementation of the Deuteronomic code gives the foundation of the English system, the Magna Carta gives a set of precedents with King John in terms of how lesser magistrates understand their relation to the highest magistrate, and William and Mary cement parliamentary supremacy after the back and forth for years in the supremacy of the English monarch and the powers of Parliament. Any place you'd recommend looking to understand more? I'd have said common law wasn't a book, but a series of decisions by the English people to regard previous precedents and a sense of the rights of Englishmen to be represented by their rulers in the decisions made on their behalf, consistent with articulations like Lex Rex, or the Magdeburg Confession. Given your articulation, would you say Common Law as you understand it is precedent-less? Or, do we agree there? Or, are you saying that depending on which stream of Common Law you swim in to get across the Atlantic to American jurisprudence, there may be no precedent to look to in a given articulation of a law? If the latter, I agree, but, there might be a network of precedents that lay a pathway of permissible principles that could ground a number of applications, or enable the judiciary to simply stand back and let the legislature legislate further, perhaps?
In the biblical analogy you used, there were examples of applications of the law for adultery that trended towards merciful dispensations even relative to the law for adultery, even after public condemnation and self-incrimination (David and Bathsheba- I don't interpret that story as David raping Bathsheba, but I do see David as the primary perpetrator of murder, and of using his position as king illicitly to seduce a married woman who didn't cry out in the pallace/town- given that, it seems clear if he and Bathsheba had sinned in that way prior to Uriah's death, apparently YHWH didn't demand the Law be applied with a maximum penalty - which means there was precedent in the Jewish narrative for not applying the Law to a convicted adulterer with the maximum penalty, in addition to the irregularity and bad form in bringing only one perpetrator to public execution; another is Jesus' own birth- the narrative indicates Joseph was a righteous man for wanting to divorce Marry quietly, prior to the revelation he received from the angel, which suggests the biblical authors believed OT Scripture didn't have to be interpreted to mean the death penalty for adulterers period for the ethics of God's people)
Thank you for this great Program with
As an Independent voter with some liberal leanings, I expected not to like this justice very much. I actually enjoyed listening to this and I think he is a fairly reasonable thinker.
+Robert Bell He is a national treasure, who has been villainized because of his originalist views and religion.
+davo171, he's a self-described originalist, but he his rulings are often quite the opposite of that.
+Mr. Gabe He was a man of honor and respect. RIP Honorable Justice Scalia.
Tamila Shultz
yea RIP, rest in piss
***** You lefties have really been triggered. Endless class results.
God bless America !
I'm very much a progressive but I've been looking into Scalia lately (you know, to understand the enemy) and I can't help but admire the man.
Enemy?
Understanding takes time. Ginsburg and Scalia were certainly not enemies. There's not a justice on the Court who is anyone's enemy.
It's easy to confuse legislation with the practice of law, I suppose, but they're not the same.
Scalia was a brilliant jurist.
I’m a progressive too, but what does that have to do with the Supreme Court? If I want change, I do it the right way otherwise it’s regressive.
Good to have a open mind !!!
I admire you immediately, being a conservative who does the same, loved the Breyer/Scalia conversation on here, and , of course, loved Scalia and Ginsberg's true friendship. -Cheers!
Justice Scalia is one of the few who truly comprehended the essential nature of a Supreme Court - not to act as a political body by taking the evolutionary interpretation, but to enforce and preserve the Constitution as it was written. As he said "It's lawyers' work", not congressmen's work.
Smart, funny, charming, realistic man. A pleasure to listen to.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Love Scalia's wisdom and humor even though I might disagree with his opinions. He cared about the Country. Over my lifetime, I have learned I long Chose to learn and respect well thought out views well beyond agreement / concurrence.
17:00 he should of clarified that if the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it etc, that this does not apply to the federal government who is only authorized to do what is explicitly expressed.
If I were the wife and family of Antonin Scalia, I would have paid for and insisted on a deep and thoroughly complete and total autopsy report.
oh man !! This was insanely good ... and fun to watch! I got at least 5 FB posts out of it :-)
TH-cam is advertising in direct conflict to the copyright of this posting.
Scalia is the kind of guy that would make you look forward to thanksgiving dinner.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. He showed that he feared American Citizens having access to the Court using the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" as an excuse. Americans may be right about their contempt if the day to day activities deserve to be held so. If I call someone, for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but shear ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
the world lost one of the great thinker and great soul , RIP Judge Scalia
+Masooda Stratigakis Great thinkers, absolutely, Great soul, I'm embarrassed we are from the same part of Italy. He has truly destroyed millions upon millions of lives. We had two geniuses of Italian'Americans in Public Service pass away during the past 13 months pass away. Antonin and Mario Cuomo. Mario used his gift to help million, while Antonin used his gift to destroy millions. I saw him speak in person once and he was so engaging and likable, that I left leaving that maybe I was wrong about him. Later that day I went into my law library and looked up not only his decisions, but cases where he wrote a dissent or for the majority, and within 45 minutes I was able to shake this temporary trance he had put me under by speaking so eloquently, intelligently and charasmatically. That is why he was so dangerous. He had the outward appearance of being intellectually gifted and great likability but when I heard he died, I was glad not bc he was dead, but that his completely screwed up view of the Constitution and how to interpret it would no longer damage the lives of so many.
Michele, do you want judges to enforce laws or change it or make new ones?
@@michaelprete3083 what about his opinions are so damaging
They fall in line with respecting democracy and preserving the Constitution as opposed to changing it unilaterally through evolutionism
what an immense person justice Scalia was.
You're right, he WAS fat.
He also led the Supreme Court's maneuvers to ignore the Recount in Florida (something they had no legal jurisdiction over) and declare, 5 to 4 thate loser George W. Bush was President. Gore won the Recount a few weeks later.
Then, Bush picked Supreme Court Judges. Yaa! Fascism is so 'immense' in our lives now.
@@arcanondrum6543 you must have studied law @ Harvard law school in order to so clearly understand the Florida counting debate
Justice Scalia was one of the kind and he will be remembered and missed anytime anywhere.
@@amardizz821 Wow, TH-cam ignored your reply and didn't bother to notify me. ANYONE who admires Scalia is either a corporate fascist or uninformed about Scalia.
@@arcanondrum6543 corporate fascist😂😂😂you don't have the story correct about Al Gore. I voted for him and was one of the voters caught up in the Florida hanging chad chaos. SCOTUS was correct - Gore's lawsuit was a joke. He and his attorneys screwed up and unfortunately we got stuck with a war monster. I also voted for Kerry, got stuck for another 4 years with the war monger.
Scalia was one of the best justices in modern history followed by the brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas.
This guy is pretty amazing. More men like him and more men like Thomas Sowel, and I think the world would be a better place.
Great man, enjoyed this. We could use his wisdom, here in late sept. 2020. RIP
At 18:00 he said: legislator should vote for abortion if you want it because it is not in the constitution. It is amazing to me that this is exactly what Trudeau the father said to women groups...i.e., they ought to convince their fellow Canadian about it.
Trudeau was an ultra-liberal by American standards. Yet he said the same thing as Scalia.......Amazing.
I was surprised by this because he doesn't even seem to consider it's a defense of life issue -one of the most cherished human rights in the constitution.
@@nancytrombley1731 He’s looking at it from a legal and legislative standpoint. Not his own moral preference. By suggesting that legislators need to vote to put those laws in place he’s also saying that there’s nothing in the constitution currently to uphold laws such as that without getting them properly legislated.
@@claytonsackett8237 Thank you for the comment. That helps frame Scalias comments.
I am a lawyer from Iceland and have been privileged to have met justice scalia what a man. Lex Lata
I don't know Justice Scalia at all, but I know he is a Supreme Court Judge for long years with much experience of the laws. I listened carefully what does he talk about and try to understand and to think if everything he says making sense or not and if I can understand well with what does he mean. Actually, I believe I understand what does he talk about and I believe he's a very experienced and the Justice of the priciples. Because he is talking about the rules of the laws only. He believes that we only follow the rules of the laws by our own constitutions, not by public opinions. Strictly say, there is nothing wrong with that and it is absolutely correct for any Judiciary of any countries to do things by the constitutions only. Because the Judiciary branch's duty is make the judgement by the rules of the laws only and not making the new laws to suit for any public opinions. In the other words, they can only make the judgement of dividing the wrong from the right by our existing constitutions. They are not supposed to make the new laws or twist the existing laws to fit the public opinions. Because the existing laws are there for us to either follow or stop, due to the reason of either it is wrong by conflicting to the existing laws or it's right by exactly what the constitutions says. Moreover, if more than 75% of the people really excited something new, then it's up to Congress' power to decide to add the new laws or not. Still, before or after the new laws be confirmed, the existing laws should serperseed anything, but to follow. This is basically what he is talking about and it has nothing wrong with the principals of the concept of the America's rules of the laws. Moreover, I believe this is really important for our Gov't's practice of the laws of the constitutions and the principals of the leadership. Because if we don't follow our constitutions strictly, you add one new law today, he twist one law Tomorrow, she add one new phrase the day after tomorrow, then our judiciary systems will be screwed up without the prime principals. As a country without the stable and correct judicial systems, it can be very risky. Because this is what the rules of the laws meant. America is well-known for the country of the laws. It's always important to follow up with the rules of the laws and go by it firmly to maitain our country's in order good society's good model as historically we always do to avoid future mistakes to happen again. Also we should be united together by most generous mind of the forgiving heart and the spirit of the healing the sickness instead of hitting one to death with the one baseball bat. Hopefully the tomorrow will be bright to all of us. God will always stand by America and Americans for his prosperity. I believe Gov.Bush understands the importance of the unity, importance of the foreign policies, importance of the priciples of the strength will make the peace, the principals of the America's and the foundations of the freedoms and entrepreneurship, the importance of the constitutions and the heart of the gold. He is a good choice for our country's future brightness.
Such a brilliant mind! What a terrible loss.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Why are there "context" boxes underneath all videos on youtube with Scalia in them but none for any of the other justices? I checked 10 videos and every one of them has it.
We need 9 justices all Scalia.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
They say that in Germany what is not forbidden is compulsory... great to listen 2 you both... humbly my congrats...
Are they ever going to tell us who was behind his untimely and extremely suspicious death?
We are never to know.
Like so many tragic and mysterious things in this country. How many mysterious deaths in the political realm have gone uninvestigated with no autopsy? We have no idea. What always surprises me is that the victims family doesn't say or do anything. No questions, no autopsy, just total acceptance of the explanation given.
Do you suppose the families are threatened (promised) with the death of the remainder of their family?
Ambassador to Bengazzi. What was that really about? Who's to blame for every death there? Who is really responsible?
There is the young man killed in an alley in a bad area of Washington DC Seth Rich. There was a suspicious and strange interpretation of what happened to him. 27 years old .
And there are more. Suspicious deaths of men who were going to testify against the Clinton's who suddenly die????
These stories don't even scratch thecl surface of political murders. Scary frightening !
😅😅😮
What does Scalia mean when he says James Madison and John Jay signed the federalist papers “poolius”? I can’t find the word anywhere.
"Publius"
Anonymous
Hope to watch this yearly as a tradition. His jurisprudence stood outside of Time it seems.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
So who paid for the hunting trip he was on including the room where he died? Did they have business with the court at the time?
i agree, the court should be independent of the media
What an all around great human being. I can easily relate to his way of thinking. It's always directed toward the only true honest way of looking at anything. No sugar-coating the truth..that deserves respect.
“Stay tuned” had me cracking up. Here following Dobbs. So much fun listening to Scalia.
Oh, the Alito "Big lie" when it comes to substantive due process and purposely misinterpreting Washington v Glucksberg. To see the correct interpretation, read the opinion in McDonald v Chicago....The person who wrote this opinion knew what he was doing. Oh...that ALSO was Alito!! Alito LIED within Dobbs
Gun owners were afforded approximates twice the range of fundamental due process rights in McDonald as Women were in Dobbs...hmm...wonder why and how that happened?
Alito is either a moron for not being able to get his argument to work otherwise, or is extremely arrogant for not changing his argument after its woes were leaked
@@davezick800 probably because gun rights are fundamental (in that they are codified in the Bill of Rights), and the right to an abortion is not fundamental (not mentioned in the constitution nor is there a history of that right)
@@macgyvernewton1630 I don't even know which comment of mine that you are commenting on lol....there are so many comments to wade through! As regards to "fundamental rights" : Fundamental Due Process rights are "objectively" either "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition" (Washington v Glucksberg). The Alito opinion in Dobbs held that the right to an abortion is the latter but refrained to opine on the former, which punted the "implicit" question onto the States when traditionally this responsibility was a federal protection against government incursion upon our rights. In the case McDonald v Chicago, for example, which occurred in 2010 and which incorporated the second amendment into the States, the same justice who wrote the Dobbs opinion- Alito - held that, according the the above case- Wa v Glucksberg- a fundamental due process right is EITHER "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" OR "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition- a much more relaxed and lenient version )and logically distinct from) the version which he used in Dobbs, which was AND rather than OR...thus Alito gave twice as many rights to guns as to Women
*HOLY CRAP! If someone found an original document that proved Marbury was wrongly decided, he'd have ignored it? I didn't see that coming! I just realized that I'm aligned much more with Clarence Thomas than with Anonin Scalia? Wow, what a day **_this_** is turning out to be!*
I was never fan of originalist interpretation of the Constitution until listening to Justice Scalia in this video. He makes perfect sense, we create too many expectations outside the original Constitution. Ex. Sex discrimination laws can be written by Congress, but it's not in the Constitution, so why would it be unconstitutional?
It's saddening, and rather frighting that such a brilliant legal mind has ceased to be. How much knowledge has been lost, and continues to be lost with the passage of time. . . .?
Whether or not you agreed with his decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, you have to respect his decision making process. That's what so many people don't realize. People today who view this man, and others in the Supreme Court as some 'barrier to progress' don't even understand what the role of the Supreme Court is. If you disrespect Justice Scalia simply because you don't agree with his decisions, you're disrespecting the Constitutional Standing of the United States, and have therefor lost my respect.
+TheWayWeSee, not sure how much "knowledge has been lost" since he was on the SCOTUS for almost 30 years. He has written plenty enough opinions to leave his mark.
"How much knowledge has been lost, and continues to be lost with the passage of time?" Add "how much common sense and applied reason" to your question, and the answer is: a freaking lot.
He didnt like scrutiny tests or totality of the circumstances judicially made rules but he acknowledged them as stare decisis ( most of the time).
He is a smart guy and very articulate. and I'm a democrat
+Defense General, Democrat in a name only then.
Defense General - no, you’re black.
Him being smart has nothing to do with him being Republican or you be Democrat. He is simply someone who thinks a lot logically based on something written as constitution and what it meant imho.
Thank you.
I just love these old videos. The people you read about in the Q movement come to life again.
The best supreme court justice to every serve in my lifetime! As he his demise was not cool and or fair! God bless you Scalia and the USA.
He was one of the worst
Clarence Thomas is great also...
@@jonicorbin7647 This must be a joke. No way someone can say CLARENCE THOMAS is a good justice. An embarrassment to replace Thurgwood Marshall
The one thing I wish I could have asked Mr. Scalia is about stare decisis, in that does he not think it possible that the Court creates it more by the cases they reject rather than the ones they accept and rule on. If the Court accepts one case on subject X and never takes up another for 100 years then they could claim stare decisis at that point and refuse to change their position, simply based on not wanting to rock their own boat
I love the man. I'm hoping a reincarnation will happen for the sake of our constitution.
Conservative Orginalist Neil Gorsuch confirmed 54-45 April 2017. Nuff Said :)
4 years later... and your wish is about to come true
@@liamyounger2743 p
You received your reincarnation from Trump His men will be good but ACB will be baby AS may he Rest In Peace. 5 year response. Yea at 50 I need to hear him speak to remember what we’re trying to save with these nuts about to transform America.
@@cjgazerro622
I can't believe that they've killed this kind,nice and brilliant man! :(
Did he ever rule on Jarndyce v Jarndyce?
It's over a year that he's dead...I'm not even from the US and I still feel like I was kicked in the guts by his loss. Things just won't be the same without him.
Sucks to be us.
Thank you
As a critic of substantive due process and an expansive natural law theorist on the 9th amendment he was a brake on runaway nihilistic libertarians . Though he didnt say it here he very much believed in the balance of rights vs responsibilities . One persons rights may end where anothers begins . As a referee in those fights he was very much a federalist.
There needs to be an originalist on the court, in fact, they all should be originalist. The departing position should be once we agree what the meaning was at the time from there forward it becomes legislative. To have judges legislating from the bench eventually ends in anarchy. I mean think about it, do we really want judges to make those decisions?
This man's right to (life) liberty and the pursuit of happiness was protected by government the same as Levoy Finnicum. Nice to hear from our Supreme Court Justice Scalia thankyou.
Horray for Naples pizza and the Yankees. Great interview.
Thank you, Justice Scalia, for an insightful enjoyable visit. May your soul repose in peace; Light Perpetual shine upon you.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Most honest guy I saw. Good man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even at age 50, I never really understood the travesty of an undemocratic court making policy decisions until watching this. Democracy is VARY flexible, but courts are not by nature democratic. So to have a court making policy decisions is really no different than having a dictator making policy decisions.
Stopped listening at 3:03’ after hearing Scalia try to rationalize Bush v Gore by saying not everyone would have been happy with either or any ruling in that case. This from a justice who boldly states that the goal of SC decisions is not to make people happy. Fair enough. But, what about making the correct decision? In this specific case, is not election integrity and its preservation a primary goal of the SC through its interpretation of the Constitution?
@@Billpeterson4785 , I think the point is exactly the opposite, that critical thinking requires making judgments based on the best evidence. I am not unfamiliar with Scalia and his judicial record, and I find his reasoning ability overrated. I was hoping in this video I might find something new from him. I didn’t, so no need to waste my time.
I wish Scalia had his own radio talk show.
Legislatures legislate , judicial review lawyers work is done by appellate judges, and setting public policy and directing government actions is an executive function. Sometimes as with all money culled and appropriated and spent there are major differences of opinion within coordinate branches by design or for political gain. Straying out of ones lane for checks and balances should be done with greatest caution and restraint.
WE MISS YOU SOOO MUCH SCALIA. A MAN WITH A LION HEART. BRAVE AND A LOVING PERSON.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
May 15, 2017. We should watch this conversation in addition to those opinions.
Judge Scalia is brilliant and an originalist. Amy Coney Barrett will be a great Judge filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat on the Supreme Court.
The enemies of America thank you ❤
Re the original comment: I decent.
People should not accept unconstitutional rulings. The constitution limits federal government. Why would a federally appointed body like the Supreme Court have the authority to reinterpret the constitution to remove people's rights without a convention of states and constitutional ammendment.
What rights has the Supreme Court removed via reinterpretation?
ONE MAN'S VULGARITY IS THE OTHER MAN'S LYRICS....IS IT CALLED RAP MUSIC???
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. He showed that he feared American Citizens having access to the Court using the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" as an excuse. Americans may be right about their contempt if the day to day activities deserve to be held so. If I call someone, for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but shear ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
24:25 Scalia correctly predicted Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs
This guy is a genius, his handle of the English language is so complex, yet so simple.
endurance is perfect attribute for the Constitution !!
Outstanding mind, brilliant orator and writer.
Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.
Why no autopsy?
I keep thinking if he was murdered why no autopsy. Plus if your father was murdered would you stay silent. I would not.
Scalia Rocks .....AND hes right!
I’m no great fan of Scalia, but I admire his wit and quick legal mind. He is a fantastic lawyer. But I couldn’t help notice some inconsistencies which he handled with grace. Did anyone catch his contradictions on discussing “substantive due process”--asking us to close our eyes to imagine the unimaginable existence of substantive due process to only admit that he has also employed the term in his own opinions?
2:23 - What should you have said in the Bush v Gore Case? We don't have jurisdiction! Send it back to the Supreme Court of Florida! Not doing that is a HUGE BLEMISH on the history of the Supreme Court of the United States!
Sure wish he was still with us.
As a liberal, I really enjoyed watching the late Justice Scalia speak. He was an able, eloquent, and engaging representative for the conservative view of constitutional interpretation. I vigorously disagree with what I view as his ossified notion of holding textual purity over social progress but I understand and appreciate his argumentation both intellectually and in the spirit of ongoing democratic debate. In reading the comments here it does seem both left and right badly interprets Scalia's legacy as being an ideological activist rather than as a constitutional scholar in the traditional conservative sense, hence the consistent framing by commenters as "the left HATES the Constitution" or "Scalia was an evil ideologue". Both perspectives are wrong and Scalia would most certainly have castigated those who hold such simplistic views.
Part of the reasoning I think, is that his arguments are logically rigid, and expose inconsistencies in our beliefs. For example, I support pro-choice prior to first trimester, and I'm pro life after first trimester. My view is not in the constitution on abortion. So when a supreme court judge has to make a decision on such a case, neither the judge nor I, can reinterpret the current constitution to mean what I believe about abortion.
Because if you allow such things to happen, then that means all reinterpretations of the current constitution are valid, including ones where you can euthanize a new born child if you don't want to keep it. Yes the position sounds absurd, but if you accept the premise of reinterpretation - how do you decide which interpretations are more correct than others? Well now you have to assume some sort of moral system to judge interpretations, and a reasonable person might say 'minimize violations of existing rights', but a postmodernist can use moral relativism to say that there is no such thing as morals - and so you are back again to the logical inconsistency - if all reinterpretation is valid, if all moral codes are valid - how should decisions be made? Who decides which interpretations or morals are more valid than others?
So as much as I don't like that my ethical views on things are not in the constitution, I have to accept that no majority or congress has voted to put my views in. I don't see any other way around the logical gaps in my beliefs. If I refuse and say 'to hell with the constitution! this is what pro-life/pro-choice should be!' then I am arguing for the living constitution, which means I take on all the above inconsistencies in my logic and beliefs. Either I am a tyrant that wants to force my own interpretation of the constitution on others, or I accept the rulings on abortion that I disagree with.
Your overexcited utterances reveal ur lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles which Scalia is so far over anyone's head that it's frankly embarrassing..he even admits originalism isn't perfect and no one can predict new phenomena..but u have to allow the constitution to stand for something..or stand for nothing..the constitution is a legal document..it says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say
Wonderful 😌