True, and Scalia isn't really that intelligent. I liked his honest take and justification for his views here, but those views are really simplistic and doesn't take the complexities of the issue into account. He merely framed it in terms of the constitution, which is a really comfortable and easy framework to use.
SK that was his job as a justice. SCOTUS is not there to parse out political issues or make law, it is to determine whether the laws made by Congress are constitutional. Scalia was the best writer in the history of the court, to call him anything but brilliant is just nonsense.
Keith Alexander - right on, bro. SK - Scalia is staying on topic, which is what you're missing. I assume when you say he's simplistic you're referring to his quizzical look he had when Piers was talking about the Founding Fathers not thinking about needing to cover abortion in the Constitution. What you're missing is that just like an actor that stays in character, Scalia stays on point regarding the judicial issue. Note how often he parses between his private views and his public view, or his ending statement about how "most issues in life are simply left up to the democratic process". He's saying: Roe v. Wade was a bad decision based on a dubious due process invention. And brian urquidez - right on, bro. Piers is a dope. Though I've been pleasantly surprised with him calling B.S. on the left regarding their hatred of everything Trump
As a British citizen, I would like to apologise for the few years America had to put up with Piers Morgan. As penance, we have to have him back on our screens again.
The very fact that the Founders didn’t mention abortion as a specific right in the Constitution is exactly why Scalia feels this way. The Supreme Court is to decide what is Constitutional and if the Constitution does not address it then the 10th Amendment clearly states that it should be decided by the states or by the people. Those on the left are claiming the recent abortion decision by the conservative members of the court is politically motivated but the truth is the original Roe V Wade decision was politically motivated by the progressive members of the court.
I feel like Piers has changed over the years. Go read his work at the DailyMail today. Maybe you will feel a little better. Then again maybe you already have felt different over the time that's passed since your comment. I feel like Piers is by far a much more even handed journalist these days.
Piers falls apart pretty quickly, especially when he tries to pretend to know exactly what the framers of the Constitution were thinking and feeling 200 some years ago.
Piers’s biggest problem is that he thinks he has a more sophisticated view of the world than literally anybody else that he’s talking to when really he’s just parroting what others say
You're saying he's is out of his depth. I hate piers but there is a problem with that theory. The constitution is subjective. Unfortunately the founders didn't create cliff notes for the damn thing. Take freedom of religion. I grew up believing praise who you want to praise without harassment. Now it's mutated to discrimination against the LBGT community. So it's subjective. And they try to twist it on BOTH sides to fit their agenda.
The vast majority of the comments here are all results-oriented. Scalia's point is that the democratic foundation of the US leaves issues like abortion to the people, not 9 un-elected jurists.
David Fleming Thank you, I like seeing this iterated because he had that expression the whole time. Nobody is intellectually capable of seeing his remarks to mainstream Piers Morgan.
I agree. DC v. Heller was an insult to the democratic process. Same with McDonald v. Chicago. Both were decisions by unelected judges who went against the will of the people.
No. The will of the people can be unconstitutional, e.g. DC v. Heller. Do you not understand why the Constitution exists? It exists to prevent democratic rule from becoming tyranny, e.g. the French Revolution.
+Tony Boy The will of the people can be unconstitutional. The key word is "can" not "always" or "never." The Constitution is completely silent on abortion. It neither demands nor prohibits it. That means states are free to legislate on it as they wish which means anywhere from making it a right to absolute prohibition. The Heller and McDonald decisions are different. There state legislatures tried to override a part of the federal constitution, namely the 2nd Amendment, with legislation. States can't do that. It would be no different than if a state passed a law abolishing or severely restricting free speech or squelching the free exercise of religion. States can't override the federal Bill of Rights with legislation. However, states are free to pass laws that the federal constitution is silent about such as abortion. That's the difference.
Why is Piers Morgan talking about America's judicial history and tradition? He clearly shows a lack of understanding, as he does with most matters of American politics.
This is what happens when activists think they're lawyers. Asking Scalia whether he thinks abortion should be illegal is completely besides the point. That's a question for a legislator but Piers apparently doesn't know the difference.
It's clearly a question that should be asked supreme courts justices. Scalia was an intelligent man (all justices are, except kavanaugh) but being against abortion is so dumb. The goverment should not be able too interfere with a womans choise.
One of the more important purposes of SCOTUS is to eliminate the tyranny from the majority. It is their job to prevent legislators to deprive women's right to decide whether they want to have children or not. Justice Scalia just wanted to escape his responsibilities for his own political believes. And the founding father thought women had no rights to vote and were properties of men. There weren't even safe abortion procedures existed back then. How are you going to know what they wanted just by looking at the constitution? Originalist are bullshitting thinking they can predict the future just by looking at the piece of paper that was written more than 200 years ago. Do you think it would be proper to allow the state legislators to decide whether to allow black people kids to go to the same schools as white kids or right to marry across different races? Then why would there be cases like Brown v. Board of Education Loving v. Virginia? As I recall, there are nothing in the constitution that talks about people should be allowed to marry across races or go to the same school.
@@laocongge Utter horseshit. Judges simply interpret the laws, and should leave any political baggage out of it. If you want change, then look to the Senate and the House, NOT to the courts.
Scalia may have got his wish. However, as I see it, changing Roe could be a step toward reverting back to states' rights and chaos. I think there are people who want no one from any other state to enter their state. How many people in the South tell me that Northerners have infected their culture.
@@arthurgrimes2463 It sure sounds like you are saying the US was in chaos for most of its existence: "reverting back to states' rights and chaos" States should hold fast to their sovereign rights and not give them up for federal money. It's sad how often you can see states kowtowing to the federal government as a master and not an mediator. The US was built from the of sovereign states, beholden to their citizens, uniting under a common flag for a common purpose. (For those who need to ask "what purpose," start with the Preamble!)
@@dwpetrak Same with Australia. the states formed the Commonwealth thru the consent of the people. Queen Victoria then gave her royal assent and so a nation was created. We rule ourselves but we are reigned over by King Charles 3.
The gap of intellectual depth between Scalia and Piers Morgan is so vast that it's impossible for the two to have a conversation. Piers is framing the issue du jour and using child-like arguments that have zero legal basis. It's literally how a 4th grader would interpret the Constitution.
Correct! This was a ridiculous mismatch..but we did find out why Justice Scalia opposed Roe vs. Wade..Many are ignorant of the intent of the framers..and Scalia was a rare exception! He pointed out here that Roe vs. Wade actually denied thr rights of states to restrict abortion..but that is not democracy! Each state should have the freedom to pass laws without imposition if the federal government..
@@carolr.556 You can see it sometimes and this can be with either Conservative or Liberal Journalists. Piers Morgan is just not qualified to do this interview and his egotistical interrupting and derailing just makes it worse. AND Scalia is even talking in layman terms and being down to Earth and trying to communicate.. I was not a fan Of Scalia but still one should listen to what he has to say and maybe even learn something ! Of course boorish , bias, sound bite driven Journalists just don't do that !
I love how piers Morgan is spouting off basic liberal talking points, representing the everyman, and Scalia is gently correcting him like a patient father with his son
Piers is playing for an audience, which he does for money. Scalia is speaking from a principled point of view. I didn’t agree with Scalia on much of anything, but he’s trying to discuss this subject in an intellectual manner, and Piers is trying to create sound bites. They should have picked a law professor to conduct this interview. Not a loudmouth media figure. 😒
Roe caused that infantile grasp. It confused in people's minds the role of courts in our system of government. For most people it comes down to this today " I like it, so it is constitutional or I dont like it, so it is unconstitutional"
The Constitution never mentioned "Women's Right" you piece of sh¡t, up until recently Women finally got Rights. Women should have their Right to decide...who are we to intrude in any Women's Body or Life! Twll me, who
@@ravix9049 The problem is that it forwards a false history. It states something was true that wasn't in order to support a contemporary narrative. This is a major problem for Scalia because much of his work deals in history.
@@redredred1 No it didn't. It was an inconsequential remark in the scheme of what he was trying get across. Had he said that women of the period had *few rights* instead of none it would change nothing about his argument.
“ If you argue correctly you’re never wrong” Scalia knows how to interpret and articulate the constitustions outdated and broad asseverations into specific arguments against things like abortion, which he obviously disagrees with. he doesn’t care about womens choice or their wants and views..he was a right wing religious and constitutionalist nut who had no interest in representing the people, only guided by his party allegiance and his religion. Such insanity!
As usual, Piers Morgan doesn't know what he doesn't know. And one of the things he doesn't know is how unequipped he is to even have a conversation with Antonin Scalia.
"I don't have public views on what should be illegal" And that is what separates the people who _actually_ run things (Scalia) from the people who _wish_ that they were in charge (Morgan).
+inc11111 It's a turn of phrase, he wasn't suggesting Scalia was violent about it. Do you literally give a rat's ass sometimes? Are people really _mother_ fuckers? It's a phrase... move on.
HE knew exactly what he meant. His interview questions were obviously written and rewritten many times beforehand. He chose that word on purpose. Its not like you interview one of the most important justices in the country and come up with the questions randomly. LEftits always use deceitful words.
@@AllFascistsCanSuckIt nah he was stupid smart. So smart that people who hear his reasoning behind why this “right” isn’t a right and agree with him are labeled as a bigot by the unintelligent
@@AllFascistsCanSuckIt “you’re a bigot”pffft that’s such a straw man argument 🙄 where in the constitution gives woman the “right” to kill the baby in her womb? I’ll will Venmo you $100 if you can show me where the Constitution says that
@@dragonflarefrog1424 I would respond but in your attempt I believe to insult either me or Scalia you prove you have difficulty with the English language. Congrats, you played yourself. But I am definitely not Scalia smart.
No it is not simple, if that was the case negate all Supreme Court decisions as well as the notion of Judicial Review in favor of the wild wild west of the 10th Amendment. There is a reason that both the Guarantee an Supremacy Clause exists, to negate the rampant Constitutional subjectivity of states based on majoritarianism.
The law guaranteeing the right to abortion is based on the Constitution as it is the document that gives the court the power to decide. In 2022, we have fanatic justices sitting the bench who are selected, bought, and paid for by fanatical dark money.
EXACTLY. In the past few decades Congress has become increasingly polarized and getting 3/4 of Congress (the amount required by the amendment process) to agree on whether the sky is blue or not is a daunting task. The SCOUTS has taken it upon themselves to legislate contentious issues that Congress can't resolve. That isn't their job. So what if Congress can't agree on a federal solution? Ok. It's left to the states. What's so bad about issues being left to the states?
Simple…it’s simple now that a bunch of religious zealots and GOP extremists are the majority! Oh how I despise today’s GOP, and that holier than thou SC, and I never felt that way until 2016. BOTH are populated with lunatics and hypocrites who use religion in ways that are shameful and evil. They could care LESS about unwanted babies nor the circumstances of how some of these women get impregnated. The sheer hypocrisy of these people is revolting!
"Changing times" is an appropriate argument in a political debate over what laws to pass on things like abortion, gay marriage or school segregation. It is not an appropriate argument in a legal debate over what the Constitution says.
I would go further and say that all of those are absolutely right or wrong, and it's the attitudes that broad swathes of people hold about them that change. Whether this is for the better is a case-by-case question.
Paul Bolin, M.D. The Constitution has been amended many times to fit the needs and whims of modernity. That is the only approprate way to chage its meaning. It just requres the Time Ghost (zeitgeist) to posess the actual public and its elected representatives, rather than an activist judiciary.
@@lol101lol101lol10199 Right you are. Problem is that the two sides hate each other so fucking much that there is seldom any deviation from the side's respective textbook values. Just once, I'd like to hear someone say something along the lines: I may like Trump but I loathed past Republican presidents or I may have liked Kennedy but recent Democrats have been everything I hate. With such a chasm between sides, how could the house ever pass a bill -let alone a constitutional amendment?
P. Morgan needed a few years of law school before even hoping to make sense when interviewing Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was about to explain the nuts and bolts of Substantive Due Process in reference to Roe v Wade when this idiot interrupted him. God bless you always Justice Scalia, I read your opinions often.
That doesn’t make sense. The constitution doesn’t explicitly mention many rights, such as the right to privacy, but Scalia only seems to be targeting abortion. Most rights that we have today are implied, and are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
I don't know what his opinion was on privacy (e.g., internet usage) but, to be fair to him, he wasn't asked about those issues. He was only asked about abortion (at least in this clip).
“Everybody believed it was the right thing to do”, if that was the case, then why didn’t people just pass laws to protect it, or even a constitutional amendment. Obviously “everyone” didn’t believe it was the right thing, not even a majority of people thought it was the right thing to do. That’s why they needed a Supreme Court ruling to bypass the legislative process.
@@amgirl4286 Fuck the states rights, and fuck anyone who cares about them if they're saying a state can have a say in whether you can get married or not. Also your cute little comment on "give some people power" shows where you're coming from. No. You or anyone else didn't give anyone power they stood up for themselves, and got their rights that were owed to them.
"right" meaning what?-Likeable or desirable? Do you suppose there to be a democracy of truth or is it all down to who has the biggest army and/or most guns? Xi is true because I can injure you or torture you-or just intimidate you, if you don't agree that X is true, or X is true because my gang is bigger than yours.As those weak, effete degenerate creatures that call themselves Americans say, Way to go sunshine, way to go.
If it’s a fundamental liberty interest that falls within the unenumerated rights of privacy and liberty, then it is a protected right that does not require legislative protection.
@@AnthonyWrightEsq I appreciate that you cannot even begin to answer this question, but, what exactly is a “right”? Can you define “a right” *without* resort to cognates and synonyms or simply substituting one undefined term with another or several undefined terms? Not only can you not even begin to define “a right”, no more will you find a single human being that can set out clearly and exactly what he means by “a right” which is to say cannot even begin to define, a “right”, or tell you exactly what he seeks to convey when he uses that word, and the reason that neither of you can do that is that it is the completely meaningless word wholly incapable of definition - it is as if it were a photograph of something, and when you look at that photograph you discover that whoever took it, took it when the lens was not focused so all you get is a blur, and no matter how much you look at it you will never be able to discover of what it is a photograph.
@@vhawk1951kl it’s funny you should say this since I have grappled for an understanding on this for decades. I’d say that the word “right” is like any other human invention, we give it meaning, generally by majority consensus. We say it means we have special abilities or attributes that should be regarded by everyone else as such and therefor protected by all of us. We can list such rights under the columns “freedom to” and “freedoms from” which are often at odds with one another. When these freedoms come in conflict, we try to use some balancing mechanism often symbolized as the scales of justice to try and arrive at some middle ground between extremes. We want to maximize the “freedoms to” and the “freedoms from” and may put “time, place, and manner” restrictions on these liberties which of course often constrain the “freedom to” in order to provide for the “freedom from.” An example could be noise ordinances that restrict loudness to certain times to permit other folks the right to sleep. We say that the right to make noise is important but so is the right to sleep and not be in assailed by noise. To be in a civilization, we find ways to cooperate, which means we trade, negotiate, and compromise these freedoms constantly. Some of our rights (ie freedoms from or freedoms to) we, by some majority vote, place higher than others in priority because we feel they belong higher in that priority and we more severely punish those who may upset the majority view. Indeed, the priorities may change by population or over time and scientific understanding can affect beliefs in what should be priorities and what shouldn’t. Individually, our level of empathy can affect what we prioritize too and may go against the group and end us up extremely rich and powerful or in a small cell or electric chair depending on many factors, including ruthlessness, intelligence, popularity. In other words, some people think they have more rights than others and sometimes, as a society, we reward the resulting behavior and sometimes we punish it.
Did Piers Morgan even prep for this interview? I may or may not agree with Justice Scalia on this, but come on Piers, do your dammed homework. Train wreck.
I didn't really like Scalia and disagreed with him about a lot, but he seems like a great man to sit down and have a discussion with. Even if you disagreed, you'd learn a lot.
That's how most of them are. I met Chief Justice Roberts and I disagreed with him ideologically but he was so intelligent and so thorough in his explanation of his views that you just want to hear what he has to say
@@notthefather3919 #WeakJusticeRoberts is spineless, and he's crying right now because he knows that "his" Court will go down in history as one of the worst. I wonder if *he* leaked the draft opinion, because he knew that if this ruling came out as immediate law, the odds of civil war were quite high. This gave the ruling sort of a "soft landing".
I come back to Scalia every now and then, it’s a shame that many people consider his interpretation of the constitution to be biased. Our democracy won yesterday, and hopefully it stays that way.
Scalia is not the genius you think he is. What about interracial marriage? Constitution says nothing about it and southern states banned it. The Supreme Court had to rule in favor of it so southern states couldn’t ban interracial marriage any more. He is wrong: some rights are so important that no state should be able to take it away.
The Supreme Court does not "rule our nation," they simply review the rules we live by. For the People, by the People. Never forget that, or imply otherwise, or you might get your wish.
As a liberal, it is still impossible not to like and respect Justice Scalia despite vastly different opinions. If all conservative justices were like him, I would have no issue with it.
That’s disgusting. He was a horrible man who would see all rights for lgbtq people, women, and other vulnerable groups taken away in a heartbeat. I don’t care that he was “respectful” because he sure as hell wasn’t when he tried to harm people.
@@macprice777 Yeah and he is a hypocrite so he changed laws all the time, the only good thing Scalia did was die. The rest of his life was spent lying, stealing and destroying
What Scalia is outlining here is basically what every conservative justice is saying. It’s simple constitutional rationale that I have not seen any liberal judge argue soundly against. Roe v Wade was simply a political decision, nowhere near legal reasoning.
Consistently, Justice Scalia left his own personal feelings out of the analysis. His only sticking point was the concept of "originalism" which is, in my view, pays most respect to the institution of language. The idea that a court can massage the meaning of words to fit the current times or an activist agenda contravenes the very nature of a neutral adjudicatory body. If you want to change laws, grassroots powers can petition their legislative representatives and push to amend the laws. Whether he was "conservative" or "liberal" is a distraction. Scalia was a defender of consistent analysis. And those sorts of judges can be found on either side. My aversion is to judges who would assume the position of activist.
@@NoQuestions4sked if you were white, and a man, yes you are correct. The 50’s was shitty if you were a member of any minority community, and to a lesser extent if you were a white woman. Don’t be fooled by nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses.
@@TheHexbugfan Imagine being so stupid. Every group was better off in some ways and worse in others back then. Who cares if people were "racist" if the majority of black kids grew up with a father.
@@TheHexbugfan activism is essential, and laws must change. The Supreme Court doesn’t get to do that however, if you believe the law should be changed amend the law don’t just pretend it means something different than when it was written. Opposing judicial activism has nothing to do with opposing activism, our system of government relies on separation of power, and instead people want to put the political future of the country in the hands of 9 people. Opposing judicial activism is supporting freedom and avoiding tyranny. We must preserve the balance of power that has allowed activists to do so much.
I feel like Piers' interjections and statements still spurred a high quality representation of Scalia's thoughts from him. These interjections did take justice Scalia off what he was talking about previously, which is bad, he should have been left to finish his thoughts, but at the same time, what he moved onto with each interjection was a new set of thoughts that I wanted to hear about. In my opinion a truly bad interviewer gets dead responses with little value, this interview was just messy.
He had a major point that is overlooked by a stupid, periphery comment, that "women had no rights." The forefathers absolutely could not have the foresight to draft a document that would be entirely relevant to life in the modern age. For the same reason Christian mold current societal views around the bible, Americans, including Scalia, do the same with the constitution.
@froggie animation - instead of ad hominem, why not an actual argument or some evidence? Piers’ claim is not that “women didn’t have equal rights to men at the founding”, it was “women had no rights at the founding“, which is a patently, verifiably false claim. Here’s a citation for you (Blackstone, 1983) - a common law definition of rape, carnal knowledge of a women forcibly and against her will, was punishable by death in the America colonies in the 1600s.
@@joepisacreta3822 He is not going to be able to source it because it falls on two very presumptive arguments 1) That women were wildly abused prior to RoevWade and 2) That the abuse has improved since then. There is one simple argument as to why abortion is not addressed in the US Constitution and that is because children were considered a blessing and a heritage at that time. In fact, women faced the real possibility of death to have them. All of this changed with the industrial revolution, American wealth, and the advancement of medicine where the life of a child became expendable.
Joe Pisacreta Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920 (19th Amendment). The Declaration of Independence even specified denial of Married Women to hold ownership of wages, money, and property (all of which had to be turned over to their husbands). I love Antonin Scalia and All Supreme Court Justices' Law Reviews and Philosophy but he is bending over backwards to deny it in this segment. (10.12.20 00:06)
@Gray Elite - yes women did not have equal rights with men at the founding, including and especially the right to vote, but again, that Piers‘ claim, he said “no rights”, which is false. That’s the point I’m pushing back on, per my other comments in this thread.
He also said the constitution was a living, breathing document that lived through public opinion of the educated classes, so he gives two opposing views, and projected whichever one he felt like at the time, whichever he thought served him the best. The only thing he was good at was mincing words and crafting them in ways that people less educated than himself would be in wonder of what he was talking about and believe whatever he had to say because he was a supreme court justice. That's called a logical fallacy by means of authority. There was no logic in what he said most of the time, if at all, and just about every educated lawyer knows it. Most people don't because most people do not have an educaiton on law theory and history, let alone personality theory and what this man was doing. He duped a lot of suckers, I'll tell you that.
I rather suppose that the maricon constitution is entirely silent on the slaughter of the unborn, for the same reason that a chap called something like Jesus was utterly silent on swerism: It never crossed either of their minds that men(human beings)could ever possibly be that vile; such things were*inconceivable* for them. The American constriction and American law were and are creatures of the English common law which criminalises both sewerite practices and the slaughter of the unborn-for screamingly obvious reasons.
The problem with the US legal system, and the SC in particular, is that it's stagnated and well, stalled. It's ossified. They're both more concerned with procedure and legal theory rather than justice- and that's sad when the founding principles of both, not just in the US but anywhere in the world, was the latter, not the former. No one day down and thought they needed a system of courts that could sit down and debate arcane pieces of constitutional trivia- it was to make sure that people couldn't just trample willy nilly on other people's lives and their livelihoods. What's happened in the US is you have an outdated constitution to which everything is (in theory. We've seen this last administration showing clearly how in practice the constitution is only as strong as who's willing to enforce it) so strongly tied to that it makes any sort of progress impossible. The legislature won't reform the constitution, and the judiciary is more concerned with enforcing the State v. Federal issue than with people's lives. It comes down to a pretty basic question then: does a nation exist to protect its constitution at all costs, or does it exist for the betterment of its people? Most nations seem to agree it's the latter. In the US, most people seem to agree with the former, which, to a sane person, is truly, deeply batshit insane.
Here's the problem---your idea of "progress" is stupid, inane, divisive, dangerous, and, ultimately Marxist garbage. When Americans---finally---wake up, your ideas get sucked up in the trash bin of total nonsense.
You nailed it. The right has smartly opted for constitution protection because that is rather black and white and is not subject to as many debates as human betterment. They do that with gun control and are doing it with abortion too. Citizen betterment is a vast, unquantifiable, amorphous objective, one unlikely to keep people divided which is fuel for vote bank politics.
@@josephbloggs4521 The entire point of the American revolution was that colonists had developed an identity independent of the British. I would not call him British by the time they founded the USA. They are about as British as Ghandi was when India gained independence.
@@Obi-Wan_Kenobi I don't know where you're getting your evidence for this considering there's 0 reference to any sort of unique American/colonial identity anywhere in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson is much more focused on matters of government and justice than identity. When he does reference identity in the second-last paragraph, he emphasizes the bonds between British identity & that of the new Americans: he refers to Brits as "our British brethren," and emphasizes the "ties of our common kindred" before lamenting that the Brits did not listen to "the voice of justice and of consanguinity." ( www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ ). Your reference to Gandhi and Indian Independence is also misleading for a couple of reasons. Firstly because Indians had non-British cultures and identities that predated British colonialism in the area, whereas American settlers did not. And Secondly because the Indian Independence movement also wasn't motivated by a homogeneous ethnic identity, but rather by the shared experience of injustice enacted by the British Crown (that's similar to the American context, but in the opposite way that you suggested). Most of those engaged in Indian Independence (and some Indian nationals today) would identify as Punjabi or Kashmiri or Bengali before they would identify as Indian.
People on the left don't give a damn about the Constitution. They want to break the country and remake it to pander endlessly to some and destroy others.
I know this is old but its hilarious to see how out of touch Piers was and still is. Trying to tell the best Supreme Court Judge ever about the history of America and the constitution. Thats rich.
Basically the argument that founders couldnt see the future is void, they wrote in how to pass a constitutional amendment. Do that and thats how u change it
But interpretation is important, which is why we have the court. We don’t need to amend if the interrogation suits the reality of our present day. Fundamental liberty interests do not need to be legislated, they need to be protected by justices ensuring that the constitution sets forth such protections.
Justice Scalia's job was to ensure laws follow the constitution. Morgan's argument that just because something is in the constitution doesnt mean its automatically correct us irrelevant
This is the problem when Congress can't get anything done and tries to legislate using the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can't determine whether a law is good for people or not, only whether it is permitted by the Constitution. So even if Roe v. Wade is incredibly crucial to women's health and reproductive rights, the Court can't uphold Roe solely on its benefits to the public if it actually violates the Constitution or legal precedents/theory. We wouldn't be having this issue if legislators in Congress did their job and passed laws that protected women's rights. It seems bipartisanship is a thing of the past now.
Scalia literally argued that if you are facing the death penalty and found guilty, and then exculpatory evidence emerges that you are clearly factually innocent, the constitution does not protect you and the government can still execute you. What. The. Flying. Fuck.
+Al Costello: No mental gymnastics are needed. Just Scalia's own words: "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent" - Justice Scalia www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9 Its a perfect example of the kind of morally repugnant pedantry Originalism produces when its taken to its logical conclusion.
kenektik amazing, you denied my claim whilst proceeding to prove it more. This is an extraordinary moment where spectators can visualize the blatant yet unrecognized logical fallacies people with your trait of thought possess. Congratulations.
kenektik He claimed the constitution does not protect it, that does not mean laws enacted later don’t. Scalia made it very clear on the issue of Abortion and Gay marriage. The Constitution says nothing about it anywhere, nor was it secretly implied by the founders anywhere. That is why you can add laws, and add amendments to it. Using the court to decide such things like gay marriage is nonsensical as the courts job is to apply the constitution as its written to the case at hand. And liberal judges much too often like to interpret it in a very progressive attitude as if it’s a living document. Such issues should be left up for debate by congress and enacted by law from the very people elected to represent us, assuming you have faith in our republic.
abortion is a democratic POLITICAL issue, not a constitutional issue. SCOTUS FASCISTICALLY took away that democratic choice from the American people who should have decided it in the many POLITICAL WAYS available to them. Scalia is right. and whether one is pro or anti abortion is BESIDE THE POINT. many Americans don't see this and are democratically POORER for it...
Mr. Scalia is absolutely correct in what he says here on the subject of abortion. It was a dark day in this country in 1973, and it is a dark day in this country in 2022. Go figure.
When a woman decides, for reasons of her own, to terminate the growth of a foetus it's no one else's business. When same sex couples get together not a millisecond of anyone else's life is altered. Mind your own business.
The problem is, people are so much without any basic principles, that they simply can't get their head around the idea that you as a Supreme Court justice could make decisions not based on your political view, but on the ground of a legal document.
When a pregant woman is killed in an accident or murdered, the offenders are only charged in a court of law for the wrongful death of the pregnant woman. Because she was pregnant the punishment from the court can be more Severe but never is the offenders charged with the death of 2 lives..
That’s not true, actually. The murder of a pregnant woman often results in charges from killing the unborn child. Scott Peterson is one that pops into mind, but it’s not uncommon at all. Don’t take that to reflect any view on abortion. There’s a difference between a woman choosing what’s best for herself and violent killer choosing for her.
@@joej2353 The logic there is - its a murder if someone else does it, but not if the woman does it. That could be sexism, but at the very least it's illogical. Whether or not something is illegal shouldn't depend on the whim of one person.
@@joej2353 the scott Peterson case pops into your mind because the baby was found outside laci Petersons womb therefore he was guilty of 2 murders.. Outside of the scott Peterson case a pregnant woman's unborn is not classified as a life until born. Pregnant woman can't drive in the carpool lane right??
I disagree with the late Justice. The ninth amendment states that rights not enumerated are maintained by the people. A democratic/legislative process cannot be used to justify the removal or restriction of a right.
Excellent point. Unless you wish to argue that such rights maintained by the people are defined by their handpicked legislators, and so such rights are kept or not kept, accordingly.
@Isodidact Bornstellar I respect Scalia's point of view, but he tended, as all conservatives and liberals do, to cherry pick when they feel like legislating from the bench and throw out contorted legal theory to make it hard for the lay person to cut through the fog. All law emerges from ideology, it just matters whose prevails politically at the time. The Constitution is a set of basic rights and principals. It was never intended to account for all issues a changing society would encounter as it matured. The Founders spoke to that numerous times. It was meant as a core set of principals and rights considered indelible. A guide. I bet they would find it ridiculous to assert that such sweeping, final action as abortion should be apportioned piecemeal across the states any more than the enumerated rights should be. Rather, on the matter of abortion I think they would prefer a federal solution. The question then is, which principals and rights within the Constitution and our heritage affords the basis for same? I argue Roe carved out one defensible approach: liberty. A woman has no guarantee of liberty if the state can compel her to surrender fundamental decisions about her person. Otherwise, what kind of liberty does she have?
@@djm4457 Thank you for this insightful discussion. I rarely, if at all respond or make any contributions to online comments, but this (especially given the current events) discussion seems fitting and fundamentally focused on sharing insights to educate others. I don't possess a knowledge of the U.S. Constitution to add to the validity of the argument for or against. In saying this, I am intrigued by the final posed question..."Otherwise, what kind of liberty does she have?" If I may adjust the subject, i.e. 'she', of this specific question and substitute it with "she/he/non-specific gender' to ask if this somehow might present a different perspective? Also, to hopefully (constructively) follow-up on this, how (if at all) does the liberty of an unborn person come into the discussion? At what point does the Federal, State or any level of governmental influence on personal rights and liberty begin for a human being in the United States? Just a though of mine that arose from your question. Thanks again for this discussion!
@Isodidact Bornstellar I do not. Rights are not granted by the government. If the government grants a right then it can also take it away which makes it a privilege. Rights are therefore retained by the people regardless of whether or not they were enumerated which is the core of the ninth amendment. The founders were firm believers in the right to privacy, limited government, and individual liberty. The belief that any of the framers would be okay with government meddling in the private life and personal decisions of a citizen is absolutely laughable.
He was a great Justice I wouldn’t say he’s the greatest Justice though, Earl Warren, Byron white, John Marshall Harlan, and William J Brennan are some of my favorites.
Joden Ericson Bandiling so you're basically saying trump is on the list also. It also took over 25 years to have Scalia killed ? Why not kill Thomas considering he's even more conservative. You have one hell of a brain I'll tel you that.
I don't know about this logic. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are not inalienable (as the Constitution says) and are prone to due process (ex: a murderer put to death). Should the human right to bodily autonomy be considered congruent with those caviated inalienable rights even though they are different ideas? One can assume that pursuing a doctor for surgery electively is a liberty, and it is. But doing the surgery yourself and ending up in the emergency room is also the ramifications of enforced limited liberty. Bodily autonomy happens regardless if liberty exists or not, and yet it is expected that it can only continue or be punished with due process (in the same way that murderer was). One may change the subject to ask the murky question of when life starts, but the question still needs an answer of bodily autonomy to complete the picture. Because if that is unanswered then it leaves the issue prone to cruel and unusual punishment. Seems like a stretch to suggest that the Founding Father's had every possibility of bodily autonomy in mind when talking about inalienable rights (they did own slaves, after all). They sound more like general broad strokes that would benefit those who look a lot like them. Maybe that's the best the Justice could come up with, but it seems like enough dissimilarity - and wanting idealization that the Founders had every kind of person in mind - to be a weak argument. (I come to this conclusion from this clip alone. I have not read Scalia's full argument.)
@@mustbeaweful2504 i mean i am not fully acknowledged about this topic, but is having an abortion after the baby has developed its full body form , brain, etc seems a little bit immoral ? Some states in the Us even allowed abortion up to 9 months in their term ?
Piers draws a poor analogy to women voting rights. It is true that they couldn't vote, per the 1787 constitution. But it was amended to ensure this right - so that it is now in the constitution. Changing times and opinions can be enshrined in the constitution (voting rights, abolition of slavery, etc.). But, to date, abortion is not one of those issues.
There are two different discussions happening: Piers thinks that abortion should be legal because women should be empowered. Scalia thinks we shouldn't be flippantly adding amendments to the constitution because most changes should be left to the states - saying nothing about whether abortion should be legal or not. A great example of why we need underlying principles to dictate our decision making. Scalia is absolutely right.
Being an originalist to the constitution is like being an originalist to the Bible. It was written in a time and with in a certain context and as times change, laws change. Jefferson was adamant that the constitution should not be a static document and that when times change and laws are no longer relevant they should be changed.
So then one should always be an originalist because basically when the laws become outdated or antiquated they should be changed. thats your argument here. Its not a bad thing but thats what i see
Justice Scalia says, "What Roe versus Wade says is that no state can prohibit abortion." Of course, Roe v. Wade contains no such grand pronouncement. Instead, it was a compromise position that prohibited State interference with abortion only in the first trimester, with states retaining the right to regulate abortions after that time.
Judicial review isn't in the constitution either. Neither is the notion that a corporation is a person. Behind Scalia's objection to "substantive due process" is his objection to the right to privacy. And the notion that humans do not have a basic, fundamental human right to make the most personal and private determinations about their own bodies is a perversity. It takes a conservative whack-a-doodle like Scalia to call that into question.
Judge Antonin Scalia, the gold standard of American Law & Order. He is still passionately missed by me. Now Justice Clarence Thomas has stepped up to that mantle of upholding the Constitution, the Law, Liberty, Justice, and the maintenance of Order for the USA.
Really wanted to hear the end of Scalia’s remarks on substantive due process. It really seems like he was opposed to roe v. Wade on a serious legal question basis and would consider abortion under a different context, provided the opportunity arose.
Yeah, like if the US added a constitutional amendment protecting the abortion right, then it would be clear what the law is. A federal statute might also work although it could be challenged on various grants, basically that such a statute would exceed federal power. Basically Scalia thinks substantive due process is BS, since there is no support for the concept in the constitution. Some liberal judges just made it up to get a result they wanted.
How is he a hero? He supports the enslavement of women. Any time the government or an outside party controls someone else's body that's slavery. And that is what this country did to black people.
The way he started to explain substantive due process in the most simple, comprehensive way was astounding. It’s unfortunate the interviewer cut him off because he was cooking
I now understand why my childhood friends said women that believe in abortion are unfit for marriage and should be for recreational use only. If a woman is so heartless as to murder her own children, think of what she will do to you when you no longer serve a desired purpose.
as an "originalist", Scalia felt that the Constitution left many things to the states ("democratic process")...as it should be...love the man...wish he was still with us!!
What due-process can theoretically occur though during the moment an abortion is deemed appropriate? If the fetus has died inside the mother's womb then there's not much time for a court trial on whether the act of an abortion should be deemed appropriate in her case. You can leave the decision up to the states, but then there's other judicial issues - what if a woman has an abortion in a neighboring state, but her home state carries hefty fines for its citizens that have abortion? Sometimes there needs to be a federal mandate, and that's what the supreme court is for. LIFE and LIBERTY for the Woman's right to Choose!!!
Wow, that's a really good legal question! I don't think that's a due process question though. Is there a pending case on the federal court with respect to this issue?
@@watchingrewatcher5045 the US congress is divided, because those who elect them, i.e. the American people, is divided. What this means is that there is NO BROAD DEMOCRATIC CONSENSUS in favor of legalizing abortion nationwide. THEREFORE, ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED NATIONWIDE
@@commentsandlikes9509 I dont know u, but I think you're awesome. That said I could literally go back all the way to the beginning of our union of states, and find issues that Americans were not consensus about. From slavery, to civil rights to gay marriage, if we have to wait for consensus from the American people we would still be on the gold standard. My comment is not about agreeing together all at once, but it's about these lazy Republicans, just look @ their legislative calendar the past decades. They've done a great job in political wins, but when it's time to actually legislate unless it's politically convenient, they're not going to do shit.
Piers Morgan is just not intelligent enough to have a conversation with Justic Scalia
brian urquidez - Amen
It's not about being intelligent, it's about earning his paycheck.
True, and Scalia isn't really that intelligent. I liked his honest take and justification for his views here, but those views are really simplistic and doesn't take the complexities of the issue into account. He merely framed it in terms of the constitution, which is a really comfortable and easy framework to use.
SK that was his job as a justice. SCOTUS is not there to parse out political issues or make law, it is to determine whether the laws made by Congress are constitutional. Scalia was the best writer in the history of the court, to call him anything but brilliant is just nonsense.
Keith Alexander - right on, bro.
SK - Scalia is staying on topic, which is what you're missing. I assume when you say he's simplistic you're referring to his quizzical look he had when Piers was talking about the Founding Fathers not thinking about needing to cover abortion in the Constitution. What you're missing is that just like an actor that stays in character, Scalia stays on point regarding the judicial issue. Note how often he parses between his private views and his public view, or his ending statement about how "most issues in life are simply left up to the democratic process". He's saying: Roe v. Wade was a bad decision based on a dubious due process invention.
And brian urquidez - right on, bro. Piers is a dope. Though I've been pleasantly surprised with him calling B.S. on the left regarding their hatred of everything Trump
As a British citizen, I would like to apologise for the few years America had to put up with Piers Morgan. As penance, we have to have him back on our screens again.
I don’t think i can forgive you..... I appreciate the apology though. Please keep this moron over there....
I hope never to see that doosh back in the U.S.
Piers is in love w himself
W o grounds
PM clearly has zero understanding of the constitution or faith in the incredible wisdom of our founding fathers.
LOL!
The very fact that the Founders didn’t mention abortion as a specific right in the Constitution is exactly why Scalia feels this way. The Supreme Court is to decide what is Constitutional and if the Constitution does not address it then the 10th Amendment clearly states that it should be decided by the states or by the people. Those on the left are claiming the recent abortion decision by the conservative members of the court is politically motivated but the truth is the original Roe V Wade decision was politically motivated by the progressive members of the court.
The way Piers Morgan talks down to Justice Scalia as if he's more knowledgable than Scalia on the topic is disgusting
Morgan is just a typical TV talking head with more ego than brains.
When Clarkson punched him in the face in a way we all did
Piers Morgan is disgusting in everything he says and does.
I feel like Piers has changed over the years. Go read his work at the DailyMail today. Maybe you will feel a little better. Then again maybe you already have felt different over the time that's passed since your comment.
I feel like Piers is by far a much more even handed journalist these days.
Piers falls apart pretty quickly, especially when he tries to pretend to know exactly what the framers of the Constitution were thinking and feeling 200 some years ago.
Like Antonin Scalia or not, but Piers Morgan is way, way out of his depth against him. Its painful to watch this for that reason alone.
The vast majority of politicans are out of their leauge when trying to talk to these judges
Piers’s biggest problem is that he thinks he has a more sophisticated view of the world than literally anybody else that he’s talking to when really he’s just parroting what others say
You're saying he's is out of his depth. I hate piers but there is a problem with that theory. The constitution is subjective. Unfortunately the founders didn't create cliff notes for the damn thing. Take freedom of religion. I grew up believing praise who you want to praise without harassment. Now it's mutated to discrimination against the LBGT community. So it's subjective. And they try to twist it on BOTH sides to fit their agenda.
Yep. Scalia's originalism philosophy is patent nonsense but hes about 1000000x smarter than Piers.
Piers Morgan is out of his depth with almost anyone
The vast majority of the comments here are all results-oriented. Scalia's point is that the democratic foundation of the US leaves issues like abortion to the people, not 9 un-elected jurists.
David Fleming Thank you, I like seeing this iterated because he had that expression the whole time. Nobody is intellectually capable of seeing his remarks to mainstream Piers Morgan.
I agree. DC v. Heller was an insult to the democratic process. Same with McDonald v. Chicago. Both were decisions by unelected judges who went against the will of the people.
No. The will of the people can be unconstitutional, e.g. DC v. Heller. Do you not understand why the Constitution exists? It exists to prevent democratic rule from becoming tyranny, e.g. the French Revolution.
So you disagree with the original post?
+Tony Boy The will of the people can be unconstitutional. The key word is "can" not "always" or "never." The Constitution is completely silent on abortion. It neither demands nor prohibits it. That means states are free to legislate on it as they wish which means anywhere from making it a right to absolute prohibition. The Heller and McDonald decisions are different. There state legislatures tried to override a part of the federal constitution, namely the 2nd Amendment, with legislation. States can't do that. It would be no different than if a state passed a law abolishing or severely restricting free speech or squelching the free exercise of religion. States can't override the federal Bill of Rights with legislation. However, states are free to pass laws that the federal constitution is silent about such as abortion. That's the difference.
Why is Piers Morgan talking about America's judicial history and tradition? He clearly shows a lack of understanding, as he does with most matters of American politics.
ye hes just the worst thing to come out of england, and ye im including all history.
America has a long history of admiring British people analyzing their politics.
See: John Oliver on the Left. Piers Morgan on the Right.
that is how justified for the public yes
Piers Morgan on the right?
Realpolitik Yes, because the nuances of American politics are so hard to grasp.
This is what happens when activists think they're lawyers. Asking Scalia whether he thinks abortion should be illegal is completely besides the point. That's a question for a legislator but Piers apparently doesn't know the difference.
It's clearly a question that should be asked supreme courts justices. Scalia was an intelligent man (all justices are, except kavanaugh) but being against abortion is so dumb. The goverment should not be able too interfere with a womans choise.
One of the more important purposes of SCOTUS is to eliminate the tyranny from the majority. It is their job to prevent legislators to deprive women's right to decide whether they want to have children or not. Justice Scalia just wanted to escape his responsibilities for his own political believes. And the founding father thought women had no rights to vote and were properties of men. There weren't even safe abortion procedures existed back then. How are you going to know what they wanted just by looking at the constitution? Originalist are bullshitting thinking they can predict the future just by looking at the piece of paper that was written more than 200 years ago. Do you think it would be proper to allow the state legislators to decide whether to allow black people kids to go to the same schools as white kids or right to marry across different races? Then why would there be cases like Brown v. Board of Education Loving v. Virginia? As I recall, there are nothing in the constitution that talks about people should be allowed to marry across races or go to the same school.
@@laocongge Utter horseshit. Judges simply interpret the laws, and should leave any political baggage out of it. If you want change, then look to the Senate and the House, NOT to the courts.
Well that is the main problem with the Left. They can’t tell the difference between justices and legislators.
@@holden6104 That's such a naive or purposefully dishonest way to represent the situation.
Scalia: "I wouldn't say violently opposed, I'm a peaceful man. I would say adamantly opposed". This says a lot.
It's June 24 2022, and Justice Scalia got his wish.
If only he were here to see it…
Scalia may have got his wish. However, as I see it, changing Roe could be a step toward reverting back to states' rights and chaos. I think there are people who want no one from any other state to enter their state. How many people in the South tell me that Northerners have infected their culture.
@@arthurgrimes2463 It sure sounds like you are saying the US was in chaos for most of its existence: "reverting back to states' rights and chaos"
States should hold fast to their sovereign rights and not give them up for federal money. It's sad how often you can see states kowtowing to the federal government as a master and not an mediator. The US was built from the of sovereign states, beholden to their citizens, uniting under a common flag for a common purpose. (For those who need to ask "what purpose," start with the Preamble!)
@@dwpetrak Same with Australia. the states formed the Commonwealth thru the consent of the people. Queen Victoria then gave her royal assent and so a nation was created. We rule ourselves but we are reigned over by King Charles 3.
The gap of intellectual depth between Scalia and Piers Morgan is so vast that it's impossible for the two to have a conversation. Piers is framing the issue du jour and using child-like arguments that have zero legal basis. It's literally how a 4th grader would interpret the Constitution.
You're right, of course, but he scores virtue points when he says dumb shit like, "women had no rightz!!!"
Correct! This was a ridiculous mismatch..but we did find out why Justice Scalia opposed Roe vs. Wade..Many are ignorant of the intent of the framers..and Scalia was a rare exception! He pointed out here that Roe vs. Wade actually denied thr rights of states to restrict abortion..but that is not democracy! Each state should have the freedom to pass laws without imposition if the federal government..
@@carolr.556 You can see it sometimes and this can be with either Conservative or Liberal Journalists. Piers Morgan is just not qualified to do this interview and his egotistical interrupting and derailing just makes it worse. AND Scalia is even talking in layman terms and being down to Earth and trying to communicate.. I was not a fan Of Scalia but still one should listen to what he has to say and maybe even learn something ! Of course boorish , bias, sound bite driven Journalists just don't do that !
Absolutely accurate observation.
And how democrats that have the minds of children interpret the constitution. Democrats have childish ideas and thoughts.
I love how piers Morgan is spouting off basic liberal talking points, representing the everyman, and Scalia is gently correcting him like a patient father with his son
Scalia is stunned at Piers Morgan's infantile grasp of the subject.
Piers is playing for an audience, which he does for money. Scalia is speaking from a principled point of view. I didn’t agree with Scalia on much of anything, but he’s trying to discuss this subject in an intellectual manner, and Piers is trying to create sound bites. They should have picked a law professor to conduct this interview. Not a loudmouth media figure. 😒
In Fairness Piers Morgan was neither American nor a Lawyer. He doesn't understand legal reasoning nor the specifics of the US legal system.
Roe caused that infantile grasp. It confused in people's minds the role of courts in our system of government. For most people it comes down to this today " I like it, so it is constitutional or I dont like it, so it is unconstitutional"
Scalia was right all along. And I’m not even a conservative
That's ok.. everyone has some faults..urs is not being politically mature
No he was not he was an evil radical extremist
He was wrong on everything.
@@alex30425 Tell me you're an imbecile without using so many words.
@mitchelll3879 I bet thats coming from a libtard
Wish Scalia was still here. Favorite justice of the past few decades.
Poor Piers, so outclassed he didn't even realize it.
Yep, and if you watch him much you will see this happens a lot to Morgan.
The Constitution never mentioned "Women's Right" you piece of sh¡t, up until recently Women finally got Rights. Women should have their Right to decide...who are we to intrude in any Women's Body or Life! Twll me, who
Piers: When they made the constitution, women had no rights.
Scalia: That's not true at all.
Piers: Yeah, but still.
@Dewy Wannamaker Still wrong. "Fewer" would work.
@prubin8 Do you know what the word 'fewer' means?
I don't see what the problem is, he was wrong about that but with that being said it was beside his point and didn't change what he was getting at.
@@ravix9049 The problem is that it forwards a false history. It states something was true that wasn't in order to support a contemporary narrative. This is a major problem for Scalia because much of his work deals in history.
@@redredred1 No it didn't. It was an inconsequential remark in the scheme of what he was trying get across. Had he said that women of the period had *few rights* instead of none it would change nothing about his argument.
Hahaha it is just silly how much Scalia intellectually outclasses Morgan!
it's called "lying"
It’s even funnier with your grift that you pretend to hold a valid opinion.
Especially being where you are from.
Yes, I pray our SUPREME COURT JUSTICES are smarter then a journalist... 🤡
“ If you argue correctly you’re never wrong”
Scalia knows how to interpret and articulate the constitustions outdated and broad asseverations into specific arguments against things like abortion, which he obviously disagrees with. he doesn’t care about womens choice or their wants and views..he was a right wing religious and constitutionalist nut who had no interest in representing the people, only guided by his party allegiance and his religion. Such insanity!
As usual, Piers Morgan doesn't know what he doesn't know. And one of the things he doesn't know is how unequipped he is to even have a conversation with Antonin Scalia.
"I don't have public views on what should be illegal"
And that is what separates the people who _actually_ run things (Scalia) from the people who _wish_ that they were in charge (Morgan).
did he ask VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO IT? Why are trolls like Morgan even allowed in front of people like Scalia? I mean seriously WTF. VIOLENTLY?
+inc11111
It's a turn of phrase, he wasn't suggesting Scalia was violent about it. Do you literally give a rat's ass sometimes? Are people really _mother_ fuckers? It's a phrase... move on.
leftist hatred
probably meant to say vehemently. the two words get conflated a lot
Not if you're competent.
HE knew exactly what he meant. His interview questions were obviously written and rewritten many times beforehand. He chose that word on purpose. Its not like you interview one of the most important justices in the country and come up with the questions randomly. LEftits always use deceitful words.
Love a British TV personality lecturing one of the most intelligent constitutionalists about the American constitution
He wasn’t intelligent. He was a bigot. And so are you.
@@AllFascistsCanSuckIt nah he was stupid smart. So smart that people who hear his reasoning behind why this “right” isn’t a right and agree with him are labeled as a bigot by the unintelligent
@@AllFascistsCanSuckIt “you’re a bigot”pffft that’s such a straw man argument 🙄 where in the constitution gives woman the “right” to kill the baby in her womb? I’ll will Venmo you $100 if you can show me where the Constitution says that
@@zacharygraham5266 lol you delude yourself, you not Scalia are smart.
@@dragonflarefrog1424 I would respond but in your attempt I believe to insult either me or Scalia you prove you have difficulty with the English language. Congrats, you played yourself. But I am definitely not Scalia smart.
Scalia’s positions were not based on emotion, they were based on the law. If the law needs to be revised, there is an amendment process. Simple.
No it is not simple, if that was the case negate all Supreme Court decisions as well as the notion of Judicial Review in favor of the wild wild west of the 10th Amendment. There is a reason that both the Guarantee an Supremacy Clause exists, to negate the rampant Constitutional subjectivity of states based on majoritarianism.
The law guaranteeing the right to abortion is based on the Constitution as it is the document that gives the court the power to decide.
In 2022, we have fanatic justices sitting the bench who are selected, bought, and paid for by fanatical dark money.
EXACTLY. In the past few decades Congress has become increasingly polarized and getting 3/4 of Congress (the amount required by the amendment process) to agree on whether the sky is blue or not is a daunting task. The SCOUTS has taken it upon themselves to legislate contentious issues that Congress can't resolve. That isn't their job. So what if Congress can't agree on a federal solution? Ok. It's left to the states. What's so bad about issues being left to the states?
Simple…it’s simple now that a bunch of religious zealots and GOP extremists are the majority! Oh how I despise today’s GOP, and that holier than thou SC, and I never felt that way until 2016. BOTH are populated with lunatics and hypocrites who use religion in ways that are shameful and evil. They could care LESS about unwanted babies nor the circumstances of how some of these women get impregnated. The sheer hypocrisy of these people is revolting!
_"Scalia’s positions were not based on emotion, they were based on the law."_ Ultimately, Scalia's opinions were based on his Catholic indoctrination.
"All matters not specifically set as federal jurisdiction is to be left up to the states".
Morgan is such a lightweight.. Not even his British accent can make him sound smart
Well said 😂😂
"Changing times" is an appropriate argument in a political debate over what laws to pass on things like abortion, gay marriage or school segregation.
It is not an appropriate argument in a legal debate over what the Constitution says.
I would go further and say that all of those are absolutely right or wrong, and it's the attitudes that broad swathes of people hold about them that change. Whether this is for the better is a case-by-case question.
Yup. We should all live in the 18th century forever.
You people are insane. Worshipping a piece of paper.
Paul Bolin, M.D. The Constitution has been amended many times to fit the needs and whims of modernity. That is the only approprate way to chage its meaning.
It just requres the Time Ghost (zeitgeist) to posess the actual public and its elected representatives, rather than an activist judiciary.
@@lol101lol101lol10199 Right you are. Problem is that the two sides hate each other so fucking much that there is seldom any deviation from the side's respective textbook values. Just once, I'd like to hear someone say something along the lines: I may like Trump but I loathed past Republican presidents or I may have liked Kennedy but recent Democrats have been everything I hate. With such a chasm between sides, how could the house ever pass a bill -let alone a constitutional amendment?
@@pwbmd i don't think you are in any position to tell anyone what they should or should not worship or hold in high esteem.
One the greatest constituinalists & legal minds in our lifetime. R.I.P. Justice Scalia
No, he wasn't Thurgood Marshal was.
@@Ryooken "I believe you do what you think is right and hope the law catches up." - Marshall.
That's judicial activism by definition.
P. Morgan needed a few years of law school before even hoping to make sense when interviewing Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was about to explain the nuts and bolts of Substantive Due Process in reference to Roe v Wade when this idiot interrupted him.
God bless you always Justice Scalia, I read your opinions often.
That doesn’t make sense. The constitution doesn’t explicitly mention many rights, such as the right to privacy, but Scalia only seems to be targeting abortion. Most rights that we have today are implied, and are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
I don't know what his opinion was on privacy (e.g., internet usage) but, to be fair to him, he wasn't asked about those issues. He was only asked about abortion (at least in this clip).
are you familiar with the bill of rights?... what's number 4 again?
Who else is viewing this in 2020 because of the new SCOTUS nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett ?
Yuuuup thats me
“Everybody believed it was the right thing to do”, if that was the case, then why didn’t people just pass laws to protect it, or even a constitutional amendment. Obviously “everyone” didn’t believe it was the right thing, not even a majority of people thought it was the right thing to do. That’s why they needed a Supreme Court ruling to bypass the legislative process.
@@amgirl4286 Fuck the states rights, and fuck anyone who cares about them if they're saying a state can have a say in whether you can get married or not. Also your cute little comment on "give some people power" shows where you're coming from.
No. You or anyone else didn't give anyone power they stood up for themselves, and got their rights that were owed to them.
"right" meaning what?-Likeable or desirable? Do you suppose there to be a democracy of truth or is it all down to who has the biggest army and/or most guns?
Xi is true because I can injure you or torture you-or just intimidate you, if you don't agree that X is true, or X is true because my gang is bigger than yours.As those weak, effete degenerate creatures that call themselves Americans say, Way to go sunshine, way to go.
If it’s a fundamental liberty interest that falls within the unenumerated rights of privacy and liberty, then it is a protected right that does not require legislative protection.
@@AnthonyWrightEsq I appreciate that you cannot even begin to answer this question, but, what exactly is a “right”?
Can you define “a right” *without* resort to cognates and synonyms or simply substituting one undefined term with another or several undefined terms?
Not only can you not even begin to define “a right”, no more will you find a single human being that can set out clearly and exactly what he means by “a right” which is to say cannot even begin to define, a “right”, or tell you exactly what he seeks to convey when he uses that word, and the reason that neither of you can do that is that it is the completely meaningless word wholly incapable of definition - it is as if it were a photograph of something, and when you look at that photograph you discover that whoever took it, took it when the lens was not focused so all you get is a blur, and no matter how much you look at it you will never be able to discover of what it is a photograph.
@@vhawk1951kl it’s funny you should say this since I have grappled for an understanding on this for decades. I’d say that the word “right” is like any other human invention, we give it meaning, generally by majority consensus. We say it means we have special abilities or attributes that should be regarded by everyone else as such and therefor protected by all of us. We can list such rights under the columns “freedom to” and “freedoms from” which are often at odds with one another. When these freedoms come in conflict, we try to use some balancing mechanism often symbolized as the scales of justice to try and arrive at some middle ground between extremes. We want to maximize the “freedoms to” and the “freedoms from” and may put “time, place, and manner” restrictions on these liberties which of course often constrain the “freedom to” in order to provide for the “freedom from.” An example could be noise ordinances that restrict loudness to certain times to permit other folks the right to sleep. We say that the right to make noise is important but so is the right to sleep and not be in assailed by noise. To be in a civilization, we find ways to cooperate, which means we trade, negotiate, and compromise these freedoms constantly. Some of our rights (ie freedoms from or freedoms to) we, by some majority vote, place higher than others in priority because we feel they belong higher in that priority and we more severely punish those who may upset the majority view. Indeed, the priorities may change by population or over time and scientific understanding can affect beliefs in what should be priorities and what shouldn’t. Individually, our level of empathy can affect what we prioritize too and may go against the group and end us up extremely rich and powerful or in a small cell or electric chair depending on many factors, including ruthlessness, intelligence, popularity. In other words, some people think they have more rights than others and sometimes, as a society, we reward the resulting behavior and sometimes we punish it.
Did Piers Morgan even prep for this interview? I may or may not agree with Justice Scalia on this, but come on Piers, do your dammed homework. Train wreck.
I didn't really like Scalia and disagreed with him about a lot, but he seems like a great man to sit down and have a discussion with. Even if you disagreed, you'd learn a lot.
he was very good friends with RBG too. The world needs more people who disagree politically but can agree to still be friends
You didn’t like him because you like the vast majority of the CNN audience are idiots.
That's how most of them are. I met Chief Justice Roberts and I disagreed with him ideologically but he was so intelligent and so thorough in his explanation of his views that you just want to hear what he has to say
You would learn how weak an intellect he had.
@@notthefather3919 #WeakJusticeRoberts is spineless, and he's crying right now because he knows that "his" Court will go down in history as one of the worst. I wonder if *he* leaked the draft opinion, because he knew that if this ruling came out as immediate law, the odds of civil war were quite high. This gave the ruling sort of a "soft landing".
I come back to Scalia every now and then, it’s a shame that many people consider his interpretation of the constitution to be biased. Our democracy won yesterday, and hopefully it stays that way.
Scalia is not the genius you think he is. What about interracial marriage? Constitution says nothing about it and southern states banned it. The Supreme Court had to rule in favor of it so southern states couldn’t ban interracial marriage any more. He is wrong: some rights are so important that no state should be able to take it away.
He is so brilliant yet has such a down to earth way of communicating. Its amazing.
Justice Scalia 👍👍👍👍. Not the rude dude with accent!
He was an evil extremist judge now in hell fire
Justice has finally been served. Thank you Lord for sending us such wise men and women to rule our nation.
The Supreme Court does not "rule our nation," they simply review the rules we live by.
For the People, by the People. Never forget that, or imply otherwise, or you might get your wish.
As a liberal, it is still impossible not to like and respect Justice Scalia despite vastly different opinions. If all conservative justices were like him, I would have no issue with it.
That’s disgusting. He was a horrible man who would see all rights for lgbtq people, women, and other vulnerable groups taken away in a heartbeat. I don’t care that he was “respectful” because he sure as hell wasn’t when he tried to harm people.
@@davidrojas426 what are you talking about? His whole point is that it’s not his place as a judge to change laws. It’s the role of congress.
@@macprice777 Yeah and he is a hypocrite so he changed laws all the time, the only good thing Scalia did was die. The rest of his life was spent lying, stealing and destroying
@@macprice777 Totally agree!
What Scalia is outlining here is basically what every conservative justice is saying. It’s simple constitutional rationale that I have not seen any liberal judge argue soundly against.
Roe v Wade was simply a political decision, nowhere near legal reasoning.
I might have disagreed with Scalia on a lot of things, but I respect what an intellectual giant he was. There is no disputing that.
lmfao!!!
@@doloreschansey9556 You're such an intellectual 👏
Consistently, Justice Scalia left his own personal feelings out of the analysis. His only sticking point was the concept of "originalism" which is, in my view, pays most respect to the institution of language. The idea that a court can massage the meaning of words to fit the current times or an activist agenda contravenes the very nature of a neutral adjudicatory body. If you want to change laws, grassroots powers can petition their legislative representatives and push to amend the laws.
Whether he was "conservative" or "liberal" is a distraction. Scalia was a defender of consistent analysis. And those sorts of judges can be found on either side. My aversion is to judges who would assume the position of activist.
Activism is necessary to further a society. Without activism, we would be stuck in the 50’s.
ArchonPriest the 1950s were perhaps one of the best times for one to live in America. What's your point?
@@NoQuestions4sked if you were white, and a man, yes you are correct. The 50’s was shitty if you were a member of any minority community, and to a lesser extent if you were a white woman. Don’t be fooled by nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses.
@@TheHexbugfan Imagine being so stupid. Every group was better off in some ways and worse in others back then. Who cares if people were "racist" if the majority of black kids grew up with a father.
@@TheHexbugfan activism is essential, and laws must change. The Supreme Court doesn’t get to do that however, if you believe the law should be changed amend the law don’t just pretend it means something different than when it was written. Opposing judicial activism has nothing to do with opposing activism, our system of government relies on separation of power, and instead people want to put the political future of the country in the hands of 9 people. Opposing judicial activism is supporting freedom and avoiding tyranny. We must preserve the balance of power that has allowed activists to do so much.
Im pro choice but damn Piers Morgan is such a terrible interviewer
I feel like Piers' interjections and statements still spurred a high quality representation of Scalia's thoughts from him. These interjections did take justice Scalia off what he was talking about previously, which is bad, he should have been left to finish his thoughts, but at the same time, what he moved onto with each interjection was a new set of thoughts that I wanted to hear about. In my opinion a truly bad interviewer gets dead responses with little value, this interview was just messy.
You are for killing the most innocent.
@ oh shut up fool
He had a major point that is overlooked by a stupid, periphery comment, that "women had no rights." The forefathers absolutely could not have the foresight to draft a document that would be entirely relevant to life in the modern age. For the same reason Christian mold current societal views around the bible, Americans, including Scalia, do the same with the constitution.
@Diane Ghazaryan tHe OnLy fOoL iS tHe lEfTy
Scalia is possibly the greatest SCOTUS justice in history.
Nah, I don't think so. I think he is a misogynist.
@@a.k.7341 What an intellectual lightweight comment.
I am Portuguese background. I love Scaliamania. What a human of intelligence he was. RIP
Piers: “they gave women no rights ... did they?”
The historical ignorance is astonishing.
@froggie animation *citation needed* ... got some sourcing for that?
@froggie animation - instead of ad hominem, why not an actual argument or some evidence?
Piers’ claim is not that “women didn’t have equal rights to men at the founding”, it was “women had no rights at the founding“, which is a patently, verifiably false claim.
Here’s a citation for you (Blackstone, 1983) - a common law definition of rape, carnal knowledge of a women forcibly and against her will, was punishable by death in the America colonies in the 1600s.
@@joepisacreta3822 He is not going to be able to source it because it falls on two very presumptive arguments 1) That women were wildly abused prior to RoevWade and 2) That the abuse has improved since then. There is one simple argument as to why abortion is not addressed in the US Constitution and that is because children were considered a blessing and a heritage at that time. In fact, women faced the real possibility of death to have them. All of this changed with the industrial revolution, American wealth, and the advancement of medicine where the life of a child became expendable.
Joe Pisacreta Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920 (19th Amendment). The Declaration of Independence even specified denial of Married Women to hold ownership of wages, money, and property (all of which had to be turned over to their husbands).
I love Antonin Scalia and All Supreme Court Justices' Law Reviews and Philosophy but he is bending over backwards to deny it in this segment.
(10.12.20 00:06)
@Gray Elite - yes women did not have equal rights with men at the founding, including and especially the right to vote, but again, that Piers‘ claim, he said “no rights”, which is false. That’s the point I’m pushing back on, per my other comments in this thread.
It is refreshing to hear a Justice distinguish between "public view" and what the Constitution says.
why refreshing? are there any current examples of justice's doing otherwise? help me learn please
He also said the constitution was a living, breathing document that lived through public opinion of the educated classes, so he gives two opposing views, and projected whichever one he felt like at the time, whichever he thought served him the best. The only thing he was good at was mincing words and crafting them in ways that people less educated than himself would be in wonder of what he was talking about and believe whatever he had to say because he was a supreme court justice. That's called a logical fallacy by means of authority. There was no logic in what he said most of the time, if at all, and just about every educated lawyer knows it. Most people don't because most people do not have an educaiton on law theory and history, let alone personality theory and what this man was doing. He duped a lot of suckers, I'll tell you that.
Gotta love the founding, ⅗'s allowing, framers on the Constitition.
Yea godforbid peoples,specifically women’s views on choice, vast majority being pro, line up with current laws.
I rather suppose that the maricon constitution is entirely silent on the slaughter of the unborn, for the same reason that a chap called something like Jesus was utterly silent on swerism:
It never crossed either of their minds that men(human beings)could ever possibly be that vile; such things were*inconceivable* for them. The American constriction and American law were and are creatures of the English common law which criminalises both sewerite practices and the slaughter of the unborn-for screamingly obvious reasons.
Piers was outclassed here. Of course anyone would be opposite Scalia in a legal discussion.
The problem with the US legal system, and the SC in particular, is that it's stagnated and well, stalled. It's ossified. They're both more concerned with procedure and legal theory rather than justice- and that's sad when the founding principles of both, not just in the US but anywhere in the world, was the latter, not the former. No one day down and thought they needed a system of courts that could sit down and debate arcane pieces of constitutional trivia- it was to make sure that people couldn't just trample willy nilly on other people's lives and their livelihoods.
What's happened in the US is you have an outdated constitution to which everything is (in theory. We've seen this last administration showing clearly how in practice the constitution is only as strong as who's willing to enforce it) so strongly tied to that it makes any sort of progress impossible. The legislature won't reform the constitution, and the judiciary is more concerned with enforcing the State v. Federal issue than with people's lives.
It comes down to a pretty basic question then: does a nation exist to protect its constitution at all costs, or does it exist for the betterment of its people? Most nations seem to agree it's the latter. In the US, most people seem to agree with the former, which, to a sane person, is truly, deeply batshit insane.
Here's the problem---your idea of "progress" is stupid, inane, divisive, dangerous, and, ultimately Marxist garbage. When Americans---finally---wake up, your ideas get sucked up in the trash bin of total nonsense.
well said
You nailed it. The right has smartly opted for constitution protection because that is rather black and white and is not subject to as many debates as human betterment. They do that with gun control and are doing it with abortion too. Citizen betterment is a vast, unquantifiable, amorphous objective, one unlikely to keep people divided which is fuel for vote bank politics.
A Brit trying to tell us about our founding fathers. Hilarious.
Your founding fathers were Brits
@@josephbloggs4521 Exactly.
@@josephbloggs4521 The entire point of the American revolution was that colonists had developed an identity independent of the British. I would not call him British by the time they founded the USA. They are about as British as Ghandi was when India gained independence.
@@Obi-Wan_Kenobi I don't know where you're getting your evidence for this considering there's 0 reference to any sort of unique American/colonial identity anywhere in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson is much more focused on matters of government and justice than identity. When he does reference identity in the second-last paragraph, he emphasizes the bonds between British identity & that of the new Americans: he refers to Brits as "our British brethren," and emphasizes the "ties of our common kindred" before lamenting that the Brits did not listen to "the voice of justice and of consanguinity." ( www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ ).
Your reference to Gandhi and Indian Independence is also misleading for a couple of reasons. Firstly because Indians had non-British cultures and identities that predated British colonialism in the area, whereas American settlers did not. And Secondly because the Indian Independence movement also wasn't motivated by a homogeneous ethnic identity, but rather by the shared experience of injustice enacted by the British Crown (that's similar to the American context, but in the opposite way that you suggested). Most of those engaged in Indian Independence (and some Indian nationals today) would identify as Punjabi or Kashmiri or Bengali before they would identify as Indian.
Scalia has incredible patience being able to put up with moronic proclaim "journalists" all the time.
I love his reaction to Piers. Just how we all react to him.
This guy Morgan really needs to read the US constitution.
Asian Country Fan Ben Shapiro gave him a copy once and Piers called it a "little book"
Lam hes too stupid
People on the left don't give a damn about the Constitution. They want to break the country and remake it to pander endlessly to some and destroy others.
@@jshepard152 Morgan isn't left- wing.
I know this is old but its hilarious to see how out of touch Piers was and still is. Trying to tell the best Supreme Court Judge ever about the history of America and the constitution. Thats rich.
Basically the argument that founders couldnt see the future is void, they wrote in how to pass a constitutional amendment. Do that and thats how u change it
But interpretation is important, which is why we have the court. We don’t need to amend if the interrogation suits the reality of our present day. Fundamental liberty interests do not need to be legislated, they need to be protected by justices ensuring that the constitution sets forth such protections.
Justice Scalia's job was to ensure laws follow the constitution. Morgan's argument that just because something is in the constitution doesnt mean its automatically correct us irrelevant
This is the problem when Congress can't get anything done and tries to legislate using the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can't determine whether a law is good for people or not, only whether it is permitted by the Constitution. So even if Roe v. Wade is incredibly crucial to women's health and reproductive rights, the Court can't uphold Roe solely on its benefits to the public if it actually violates the Constitution or legal precedents/theory.
We wouldn't be having this issue if legislators in Congress did their job and passed laws that protected women's rights. It seems bipartisanship is a thing of the past now.
1:21 thanks for interrupting a brilliant point with that uncouth question
Great use of uncouth
He didn’t let him finish. Piers thinks he is smart but he is just mid street level. No idea why he is there.
Scalia is just a brilliant mind that this country misses oh so much since his passing. What an intellect yet so very humble and human.
RIP Scalia
Scalia literally argued that if you are facing the death penalty and found guilty, and then exculpatory evidence emerges that you are clearly factually innocent, the constitution does not protect you and the government can still execute you.
What. The. Flying. Fuck.
kenektik what gold medal mental gymnastics did you do to come to that conclusion?
+Al Costello: No mental gymnastics are needed. Just Scalia's own words:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent"
- Justice Scalia www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9
Its a perfect example of the kind of morally repugnant pedantry Originalism produces when its taken to its logical conclusion.
kenektik amazing, you denied my claim whilst proceeding to prove it more. This is an extraordinary moment where spectators can visualize the blatant yet unrecognized logical fallacies people with your trait of thought possess. Congratulations.
kenektik He claimed the constitution does not protect it, that does not mean laws enacted later don’t. Scalia made it very clear on the issue of Abortion and Gay marriage. The Constitution says nothing about it anywhere, nor was it secretly implied by the founders anywhere. That is why you can add laws, and add amendments to it. Using the court to decide such things like gay marriage is nonsensical as the courts job is to apply the constitution as its written to the case at hand. And liberal judges much too often like to interpret it in a very progressive attitude as if it’s a living document. Such issues should be left up for debate by congress and enacted by law from the very people elected to represent us, assuming you have faith in our republic.
abortion is a democratic POLITICAL issue, not a constitutional issue. SCOTUS FASCISTICALLY took away that democratic choice from the American people who should have decided it in the many POLITICAL WAYS available to them. Scalia is right. and whether one is pro or anti abortion is BESIDE THE POINT. many Americans don't see this and are democratically POORER for it...
Morgan is so far outmatched here that he doesn't even realize the degree to which he is outmatched.
I agree. I could have done a better job of mopping the floor with Scalia.
Mr. Scalia is absolutely correct in what he says here on the subject of abortion. It was a dark day in this country in 1973, and it is a dark day in this country in 2022. Go figure.
When a woman decides, for reasons of her own, to terminate the growth of a foetus it's no one else's business. When same sex couples get together not a millisecond of anyone else's life is altered. Mind your own business.
The problem is, people are so much without any basic principles, that they simply can't get their head around the idea that you as a Supreme Court justice could make decisions not based on your political view, but on the ground of a legal document.
Imagine thinking that judges are so perfectly impartial that no biases enter into their legal interpretations. How grotesquely naive.
@@cloudbusting_ everyone has biases. Judges are typically better at understanding their bias and trying their best to not let it influence them
Piers Morgan shouldn’t be able to interview smart people.
It's 2022, Roe was overruled, and I wish Justice Scalia could live to this day and write the majority opinion for Dobbs.
Amend the Constitution if America wants abortion.
That’s the problem. It’s 50/50. Which brings back to Scalia’s point that it shouldn’t be federally mandated.
@@thestifmyster1 The constitution was amended to put in place presidential term limits after FDR died. Anything is possible including the ERA.
Justice scalia was a truly great American I hope his legacy lives on
i wish he was still on the court!
We all do.
Does the Constitution say the states may not operate racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage?
It's now 2022 and we're finally getting to dismantling Roe v Wade.
When a pregant woman is killed in an accident or murdered, the offenders are only charged in a court of law for the wrongful death of the pregnant woman.
Because she was pregnant the punishment from the court can be more Severe but never is the offenders charged with the death of 2 lives..
That’s not true, actually. The murder of a pregnant woman often results in charges from killing the unborn child. Scott Peterson is one that pops into mind, but it’s not uncommon at all.
Don’t take that to reflect any view on abortion. There’s a difference between a woman choosing what’s best for herself and violent killer choosing for her.
@@joej2353 The logic there is - its a murder if someone else does it, but not if the woman does it. That could be sexism, but at the very least it's illogical. Whether or not something is illegal shouldn't depend on the whim of one person.
@@joej2353 the scott Peterson case pops into your mind because the baby was found outside laci Petersons womb therefore he was guilty of 2 murders..
Outside of the scott Peterson case a pregnant woman's unborn is not classified as a life until born.
Pregnant woman can't drive in the carpool lane right??
@@gordonrobertson4326 Rafiq Thompson was charged with 2 counts of murder for shooting his pregnant girlfriend.
@@gordonrobertson4326 Raymond Earl Holmes Jr. and Sincere Perry we’re charged with the murder of Ashanti Bellamy and her unborn child in NC.
I disagree with the late Justice. The ninth amendment states that rights not enumerated are maintained by the people. A democratic/legislative process cannot be used to justify the removal or restriction of a right.
Excellent point. Unless you wish to argue that such rights maintained by the people are defined by their handpicked legislators, and so such rights are kept or not kept, accordingly.
@Isodidact Bornstellar I respect Scalia's point of view, but he tended, as all conservatives and liberals do, to cherry pick when they feel like legislating from the bench and throw out contorted legal theory to make it hard for the lay person to cut through the fog. All law emerges from ideology, it just matters whose prevails politically at the time. The Constitution is a set of basic rights and principals. It was never intended to account for all issues a changing society would encounter as it matured. The Founders spoke to that numerous times. It was meant as a core set of principals and rights considered indelible. A guide. I bet they would find it ridiculous to assert that such sweeping, final action as abortion should be apportioned piecemeal across the states any more than the enumerated rights should be. Rather, on the matter of abortion I think they would prefer a federal solution. The question then is, which principals and rights within the Constitution and our heritage affords the basis for same? I argue Roe carved out one defensible approach: liberty. A woman has no guarantee of liberty if the state can compel her to surrender fundamental decisions about her person. Otherwise, what kind of liberty does she have?
@@djm4457 Thank you for this insightful discussion. I rarely, if at all respond or make any contributions to online comments, but this (especially given the current events) discussion seems fitting and fundamentally focused on sharing insights to educate others. I don't possess a knowledge of the U.S. Constitution to add to the validity of the argument for or against. In saying this, I am intrigued by the final posed question..."Otherwise, what kind of liberty does she have?"
If I may adjust the subject, i.e. 'she', of this specific question and substitute it with "she/he/non-specific gender' to ask if this somehow might present a different perspective? Also, to hopefully (constructively) follow-up on this, how (if at all) does the liberty of an unborn person come into the discussion? At what point does the Federal, State or any level of governmental influence on personal rights and liberty begin for a human being in the United States? Just a though of mine that arose from your question. Thanks again for this discussion!
@Isodidact Bornstellar I do not. Rights are not granted by the government. If the government grants a right then it can also take it away which makes it a privilege. Rights are therefore retained by the people regardless of whether or not they were enumerated which is the core of the ninth amendment. The founders were firm believers in the right to privacy, limited government, and individual liberty. The belief that any of the framers would be okay with government meddling in the private life and personal decisions of a citizen is absolutely laughable.
Justice Antonin Scalia, the greatest Justice to ever sit on the Supreme Court. He is greatly missed!
too soon to tell...
He was a great Justice I wouldn’t say he’s the greatest Justice though, Earl Warren, Byron white, John Marshall Harlan, and William J Brennan are some of my favorites.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I guess it's one of those things that's subjective.
You can tell piers is desperately trying to get him to show his partisanship as a justice
I agree let the states decide if abortion is legal at what degrees in their own state
What a outstanding personality! So charasmatic
Yes, a beautiful, authentic soul. So sad he was murdered by the left.
Jennifer C RN proof please ? You sound stupid as hell
Joden Ericson Bandiling so you're basically saying trump is on the list also. It also took over 25 years to have Scalia killed ? Why not kill Thomas considering he's even more conservative. You have one hell of a brain I'll tel you that.
Jennifer C RN What? 😂😂😂
_FUGAZI Omg what the fuck are you even talking about?
I don't know about this logic. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are not inalienable (as the Constitution says) and are prone to due process (ex: a murderer put to death). Should the human right to bodily autonomy be considered congruent with those caviated inalienable rights even though they are different ideas?
One can assume that pursuing a doctor for surgery electively is a liberty, and it is. But doing the surgery yourself and ending up in the emergency room is also the ramifications of enforced limited liberty. Bodily autonomy happens regardless if liberty exists or not, and yet it is expected that it can only continue or be punished with due process (in the same way that murderer was). One may change the subject to ask the murky question of when life starts, but the question still needs an answer of bodily autonomy to complete the picture. Because if that is unanswered then it leaves the issue prone to cruel and unusual punishment.
Seems like a stretch to suggest that the Founding Father's had every possibility of bodily autonomy in mind when talking about inalienable rights (they did own slaves, after all). They sound more like general broad strokes that would benefit those who look a lot like them. Maybe that's the best the Justice could come up with, but it seems like enough dissimilarity - and wanting idealization that the Founders had every kind of person in mind - to be a weak argument.
(I come to this conclusion from this clip alone. I have not read Scalia's full argument.)
Except you’re neglecting to consider the bodily autonomy of that other person...the baby. It does not have a right to, at the very least, exist?
@@scottcampbell1635 A fetus doesn't have bodily autonomy. It is entirely dependent on its carrier.
@@mustbeaweful2504 im having no statement, but whatif when that baby develop its full form. Some states even allow abortion up late in their term
@@hancholo3411 I'm sorry, I don't think I can fully grasp what you're saying. Could you flesh it out a bit more?
@@mustbeaweful2504 i mean i am not fully acknowledged about this topic, but is having an abortion after the baby has developed its full body form , brain, etc seems a little bit immoral ?
Some states in the Us even allowed abortion up to 9 months in their term ?
A Brit trying to educate Americans on their own country, history, and legal system is the most European thing a European can do
Piers draws a poor analogy to women voting rights. It is true that they couldn't vote, per the 1787 constitution. But it was amended to ensure this right - so that it is now in the constitution. Changing times and opinions can be enshrined in the constitution (voting rights, abolition of slavery, etc.). But, to date, abortion is not one of those issues.
There are two different discussions happening:
Piers thinks that abortion should be legal because women should be empowered.
Scalia thinks we shouldn't be flippantly adding amendments to the constitution because most changes should be left to the states - saying nothing about whether abortion should be legal or not.
A great example of why we need underlying principles to dictate our decision making. Scalia is absolutely right.
Amendments are literally part of the Constitution.
We did it sir. GOD BLESS
Being an originalist to the constitution is like being an originalist to the Bible. It was written in a time and with in a certain context and as times change, laws change. Jefferson was adamant that the constitution should not be a static document and that when times change and laws are no longer relevant they should be changed.
So then one should always be an originalist because basically when the laws become outdated or antiquated they should be changed. thats your argument here. Its not a bad thing but thats what i see
RIP Justice Antonin Scalia. You are not forgotten.
Never rip Ruth Nader Ginsburg
Justice Scalia says, "What Roe versus Wade says is that no state can prohibit abortion." Of course, Roe v. Wade contains no such grand pronouncement. Instead, it was a compromise position that prohibited State interference with abortion only in the first trimester, with states retaining the right to regulate abortions after that time.
Judicial review isn't in the constitution either.
Neither is the notion that a corporation is a person.
Behind Scalia's objection to "substantive due process" is his objection to the right to privacy. And the notion that humans do not have a basic, fundamental human right to make the most personal and private determinations about their own bodies is a perversity. It takes a conservative whack-a-doodle like Scalia to call that into question.
Correct, and now the court is composed mainly of Catholics with such views. And entire branch of government is ran by religion.
were you out smoking pot when they taught high school civics? You really don't understand the role of SCOTUS do you.
Scalia was so masterful and brilliant. Hope President Trump nominates someone like him after Kennedy retires. Would do wonders for the country.
@nw 45 Not even close to being accurate. Don't believe everything you read.
Roe is gone! Thank you, Justice Scalia! Hope you're enjoying this in Heaven!
Roe was wrong from the start.
Yes it was wrong.
WOW !!! I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since we took away their slaves.
Judge Antonin Scalia, the gold standard of American Law & Order. He is still passionately missed by me. Now Justice Clarence Thomas has stepped up to that mantle of upholding the Constitution, the Law, Liberty, Justice, and the maintenance of Order for the USA.
Really wanted to hear the end of Scalia’s remarks on substantive due process. It really seems like he was opposed to roe v. Wade on a serious legal question basis and would consider abortion under a different context, provided the opportunity arose.
Yeah, like if the US added a constitutional amendment protecting the abortion right, then it would be clear what the law is. A federal statute might also work although it could be challenged on various grants, basically that such a statute would exceed federal power. Basically Scalia thinks substantive due process is BS, since there is no support for the concept in the constitution. Some liberal judges just made it up to get a result they wanted.
I thank God for the few heroes in my life and for Justice Scalia. What a master.
How is he a hero? He supports the enslavement of women. Any time the government or an outside party controls someone else's body that's slavery. And that is what this country did to black people.
@@a.k.7341 “enslavement of women” oh please shut up that’s a logical fallacy and you know it.
“Do you know Pythagorean’s theorem to the nearest 5 decimal places?” - some idiot
Roe vs Wade was a stain on American history !!!
The way he started to explain substantive due process in the most simple, comprehensive way was astounding. It’s unfortunate the interviewer cut him off because he was cooking
I now understand why my childhood friends said women that believe in abortion are unfit for marriage and should be for recreational use only. If a woman is so heartless as to murder her own children, think of what she will do to you when you no longer serve a desired purpose.
as an "originalist", Scalia felt that the Constitution left many things to the states ("democratic process")...as it should be...love the man...wish he was still with us!!
What due-process can theoretically occur though during the moment an abortion is deemed appropriate? If the fetus has died inside the mother's womb then there's not much time for a court trial on whether the act of an abortion should be deemed appropriate in her case. You can leave the decision up to the states, but then there's other judicial issues - what if a woman has an abortion in a neighboring state, but her home state carries hefty fines for its citizens that have abortion? Sometimes there needs to be a federal mandate, and that's what the supreme court is for. LIFE and LIBERTY for the Woman's right to Choose!!!
Well said
Wow, that's a really good legal question! I don't think that's a due process question though. Is there a pending case on the federal court with respect to this issue?
There is a process to Amend the Constitution.
It is a simple idea. He is a justice not a legislator. Why doesn’t congress pass a law allowing abortion.
Exactly
Have u met the U.S Congress?
@@watchingrewatcher5045 the US congress is divided, because those who elect them, i.e. the American people, is divided. What this means is that there is NO BROAD DEMOCRATIC CONSENSUS in favor of legalizing abortion nationwide. THEREFORE, ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED NATIONWIDE
@@commentsandlikes9509 I dont know u, but I think you're awesome. That said I could literally go back all the way to the beginning of our union of states, and find issues that Americans were not consensus about. From slavery, to civil rights to gay marriage, if we have to wait for consensus from the American people we would still be on the gold standard. My comment is not about agreeing together all at once, but it's about these lazy Republicans, just look @ their legislative calendar the past decades. They've done a great job in political wins, but when it's time to actually legislate unless it's politically convenient, they're not going to do shit.