ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2012
- Justice Antonin Scalia talks to CNN's Piers Morgan about Roe v. Wade and abortion rights in 2012.
Senate will hold key vote on bill to preserve right to abortion with Roe v. Wade in jeopardy
www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politi...
Overturning Roe could have major repercussions for IVF treatments, fertility experts warn
www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politi...
Opinion: Supreme Court mystery thickens
Opinion by Richard Galant, CNN
(CNN) In the mid-1990s, a law student at Columbia University spent his spare time writing a thriller about the inner workings of the US Supreme Court. Brad Meltzer's "The 10th Justice" told the story of Ben Addison, a clerk to one of the justices who is duped into revealing the court's forthcoming, but still confidential, ruling to people seeking to profit off the decision.
In real life, when Politico published a draft majority opinion last week striking down the half-century old precedent that legalized abortion in America, there was no way to tell how it leaked - or why. The revelation rocked America's political and legal worlds.
Gone was not only court secrecy, but also the assurances from conservative Supreme Court nominees that Roe v. Wade was "settled" law, which led some observers to think that the court doctrine of "stare decisis" - to "stand by things decided" - might prevent the complete overturning of a landmark precedent set in 1973.
Read more at www.cnn.com/2022/05/08/opinio...
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 1 มิถุนายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3canzHC_d0k/mqdefault.jpg)
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!
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 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.
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
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.
Scalia: "I wouldn't say violently opposed, I'm a peaceful man. I would say adamantly opposed". This says a lot.
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"
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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 Morgan trying to argue the law with Scalia was/is a joke. Its analogous to me telling Ted Williams how to hit a baseball. Scalia is two years dead and he's still smarter than Morgan.
Let the little man try to get his thoughts out. I admire Piers Morgan for struggling to put together a single coherent thought but that's never stopped him from opening his mouth!
@@estebanrodas31 idk. to me it seems that hes just playing devils advocate to better undertand what scalia thinks. thats good journalism to me.
Well yea, cuz he’s most likely in heaven and more alive there than he was in this interview! ;-)
@@selahanany5645 No one has ever accused Morgan of being a journalist before. And for good reason. How dare you!? lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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).
Morgan is such a lightweight.. Not even his British accent can make him sound smart
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
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".
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.
Antonin scalia was an outstanding supreme court justice, he will be truly missed.
SID Adn loser leftist
@Mag haha :)
Mag Thank God the wicked witch is dead
Yeah I'm kinda glad he's gone
masonblues1235 I was talking about rbg
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.
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 👏
Scalia is possibly the greatest SCOTUS justice in history.
Nah, I don't think so. I think he is a misogynist.
What I'll always respect about Scalia is that he recognized that his role as an unelected official meant that he was tasked with upholding the law and not making new ones. He understood that that should be up to the people and their elected representatives, and didn't use his power to draft new policy like many other Supreme Court Justices.
TheDukeOfTumwater No judge has ever drafted new policy. I don't think you know what judges do....
He was part of many decisions which changed government “policy,” he was part of the majority on Citizens United which struck a law passed in both the house and senate. To name one.
@@michaelyoung5613 Brown V. board of education definitely changed policy (not that it was a bad thing)
Man, you did a good job of letting everyone know you don't know what you're talking about
@@Big_Wamu who are you replying to?
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.
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?
The way Justice Scalia describes the due process clause in regards to Roe vs Wade is brilliant. I get why he opposed Roe vs Wade. While I disagree with many of Scalia’s opinions, I love the way he explains why he made this decision.
Well, I dont get it. I can see the 4th, and the 9th, as support for aboetion; but it seems the 14th goes the other way. Can you explain?
Too bad he’s straw manning it. Nowhere in substantive law jurisprudence does it hold that some rights are so important that “no due process can take them away”, like Scalia says here. He is plainly misrepresenting the rule. And he knows it. Such rights receive “strict scrutiny” by the court, not no deference at all. This is why Justice Scalia is, in fact, an activist as well. He is literally going on tv and making arguments that he knows are wrong, to undermine a case he didn’t like. A straight up hypocrite. RIP though.
@@BadBob18 I don't even hope he RIPs. He was an absolute enemy to any rights that he didn't see fit for people to have, and that is a personal issue that needed to be examined by himself and his therapist, which obviously never was if he was about 76 years old when this interview was done.
@@BadBob18 I don't even hope he RIPs. He was an absolute enemy to any rights that he didn't see fit for people to have, and that is a personal issue that needed to be examined by himself and his therapist, which obviously never was if he was about 76 years old when this interview was done.
Roe V Wade is based on the privacy clause, not what he's spewing.
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.
Who else is viewing this in 2020 because of the new SCOTUS nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett ?
Yuuuup thats me
Wish Scalia was still here. Favorite justice of the past few decades.
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.
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 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.
"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.
We love and miss you Justice Scalia! Not many judges will ever be as kind or as straightforward as you!
@Adm Sid I smell modern political bias.
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.
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
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.
I am Portuguese background. I love Scaliamania. What a human of intelligence he was. RIP
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.
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.
@Professor C 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
@@jameskeith1217 very true
I love his reaction to Piers. Just how we all react to him.
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?
We did it sir. GOD BLESS
“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.
I miss you sir. Whether you ruled for or against someone it was. As you can see, based on constitutional fact. Even when he didn’t like the results he fairly yielded to what the constitution says . That’s a true justice.
He will never be forgotten.
The Constitution is centuries years old. It's outdated. Amendments are made to fix what the founding fathers (men) left out or missed because it wouldn't suit them
He was guided strictly by his diabolical religious views and his insane allegiance to his party. That’s it. There is nothing to be respected about a man who spun the constitutions asseverations to match his parties draconian interpretations of the constitution With zero empathy, ethics and objective logic. I guess that’s fair in people mind…..
He will go down as one of the worst justices who twisted the constitution and clearly couldn’t interpret it all.
Justice scalia was a truly great American I hope his legacy lives on
i wish he was still on the court!
We all do.
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.
Piers Morgan shouldn’t be able to interview smart people.
rest in peace
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.
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.
1:21 thanks for interrupting a brilliant point with that uncouth question
Great use of uncouth
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 would love to meet this man. Scalia that is.
I saw him give a speech once, he was an intellectual giant with a GREAT sense of humor!
He's dead
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.
It's 2022, Roe was overruled, and I wish Justice Scalia could live to this day and write the majority opinion for Dobbs.
If times are changing and most people want to change something, there's this thing called a Constitutional Amendment. If most people agree with it, it can be easily passed.
+weedwak But they should only be used to acknowledge rights, not try to take them away. The problem with both the left and right is their desire to ban things. If some consenting adults want to get married, that's their business and no one else's. The government should have no involvement, and no group should be able to deprive them of their liberty. Likewise, if a person wants to buy a gun or get an abortion, that's no one's business but theirs.
+IndyDefense See, an abortion is different. I agree with the others, but an abortion can be seen as taking away a baby's right to life.
weedwak The problem is that the baby is inside the woman's body. So by making abortion illegal, you are effectively giving the government control over a woman's uterus. There was a case in Africa a while back where a 10-year-old girl was raped, and her country's government forced her to carry the child full term. Now a lot of people would respond to that by saying that exceptions can be made for rape or incest. But I would respond by saying that it's not the unborn child's fault that it was conceived from those things. So that takes me back to my original argument that the woman should always have the right to decide what to do.
+weedwak
... and forcing a woman to carry to term can be seen as slavery.
Many of the social problem we have are not just about banning things, but about people telling OTHER people what they can and cannot. It's this meddling that's a big problem. People need to MTOFB.
+IndyDefense Many times, the mother can still live. It's not taking control over the uterus, it's giving that child the right to live. If the mother's life is at risk, then yes, I think an abortion can be decided on.
Scalia has incredible patience being able to put up with moronic proclaim "journalists" all the time.
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.
too bad Morgan is always trying to shout over other people to remind them how ignorant he is
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.
Antonin Scalia, a brilliant mind.
And an utter asshole
@@st3ppenwolf Now that's sure an "intelligent" comment. In case you can't discern my meaning, I am being sarcastic.
@@judgeparker4236 I can discern your sarcasm need a bit of polish
@@st3ppenwolf And, your mind and language would be better off out of the gutter.
@@judgeparker4236 I can also discern your come backs need a bit of polish, in fact your whole persona needs a bit of polish.. good luck in life, you'll probably need it
Scalia - what a man. Piers was no match.
RIP Justice Antonin Scalia. You are not forgotten.
Never rip Ruth Nader Ginsburg
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.
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.
Piers Morgan shows legal ignorance
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.
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!!
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.
Morgan is so far outmatched here that he doesn't even realize the degree to which he is outmatched.
Why wouldn't Scalia bother with Piers Morgan?
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.
LMFAO you could tell this interview was over when Scalia gave an intelligent and nuanced answer and piers just responds "should abortion be illegal"
It’s called putting him on the spot. Scalia was beating around the bush, and the interviewer went straight for the trunk.
@@TheHexbugfan No it isnt because there is no case that has ever become before the supreme court with that simple a question. People try to dumb down the actual judicial questions posed to a few words but the fact is Roe v Wade wasnt as simple as "should abortion be legal" it was a case about the 10th ammendment and whether or not abortion legality was covered under the constitution or if its a states issue.
The true crux of Roe v Wade is states v federal rights w/r/t topics not listed in the constitution. Thats what Scalia was stating in hios response... Since the constitution takes no stance on the matter then the federal govt must pass a law legalizing abortion if they want it legal. Its not the courts position to legislate and legalize abortion from the bench.
Hence why many people say Roe v Wade is improperly decided is because its a classic example of the courts acting in a legislation manner. If you want abortion to be legal congress must pass a bill otherwise its a states rights issue that each state gets to decide.
@@onebuffalo5402 But why should the constitution be so heavily relied upon as if it's a worthy moral compass for any modern nation? Law should be rooted in the constitution to a certain degree, but should that degree subvert morality?
@@TheHexbugfan b/c its the founding principle of our country that set the base standards and rule for governance... Its the rules our country was founded on... that being said the concept of the constitution as a "living document" is that if society takes such a massive change the document can be amended and changed Via ratification of a new amendment.
Your argument of morality is subjective and if it were universal the constitution would/could be amended to reflect that universality (ie the 13th amendment and the abolition of slavery). Just because you regard abortion as a moral right doesnt equate it to a universal belief. If it ever did reach that standard it could be legally incorporated into the constitution via ratification.
however as of now not only is it not covered in the constitution but its not even covered by any federal laws. Further exemplifying its polarizing nature morality wise indicating it should be relegated to the states to decide its legality based on what their individual constituents believe is morally correct.
@@TheHexbugfan No. Listen to Scalia and Amy Coney Barrett. They don't have a damn litmus test vis a vis liberal justices. This is why it's so preposterously difficult for liberal senators etc. to grasp that there isn't an agenda per se. They (liberal justices, senators etc.) *tend* to have such black and white views and bend law to embrace their position. During Amy Coney Barrett's testimony, I was struck, thunderously, with that point. I actually believe she could uphold Roe, even if she disagreed with it, if she felt the process, law etc. were in it's favor. In other words, she could uphold it if a technicality was out of place, even if it broke her heart to do so. A liberal justice? Wayyyyy more likely to simply legislate from the bench.
I agree let the states decide if abortion is legal at what degrees in their own state
Piers Morgan has no standing to challenge Scalia. He's embarrassing himself.
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
A Brit trying to educate Americans on their own country, history, and legal system is the most European thing a European can do
Here, Here! Well said Justice Scalia!
This is y u shall never argue with an expert let alone a great lawyer/judge.
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.
Roe was wrong from the start.
Yes it was wrong.
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.
I wish he were alive to see his protégés concur with his brilliant opinions
Scalia was an amazing justice for the American people. Truly missed
He was a radical extremist glad he's gone
He's burning in hell right now, if there is a just God in heaven.
@@sidali2590 Yeah, so radical because his jurisprudence leaves questions to the American people rather than having 9 justices tyrannically decide those questions for them.
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 ?
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
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...
I disagree with Scalia, but I've got to admit, he's one of the coolest justices in American history!
Nothing to disagree with..he is right, ur wrong..and he can back it up..u nor anyone else can
I have never been so frustrated with an interviewer as I have with Piers when he interrupted Scalia during answer to the first question. Fucking hell
It's now 2022 and we're finally getting to dismantling Roe v Wade.
But why have Piers do the interview? WHY???