Where Breyer gets it wrong is when he speaks of an evolving standard in cases where the practices he wishes to prohibit were present at the time of the text which demonstrate the very value he claims has changed. Those who wrote the text while simultaneously allowing a practice were telling you what the standard is.
The justices department can’t change the United States constitution only the Supreme Court can if the ruling in the largest percentage to add amendments or to have a law firm that word argued for such topics the Constitution really will never be changed in my view.
They must use interpretation skills where logical conundrums are there, not on ethical grounds . A judge in court is not immediate reflection of ethics people of realm adhere to, it is legislators. When there is no logical error, different interpretation than original can not be given on ethical grounds.
Quite interesting to listen to your conversation and discussions ! Compliments 😌 🎉 Never does your discussions makes a mention of the special occasions of judgments whereat the events may call for the constitution of Courts special and specific with a suitable authority on the topics of disputes and controversies 😢. Are Special Courts out of date ? and even so with the faculties in the Sciences of Laws and Jurisprudence ? As for the topics on abortion , death etc I would like to be served by your answer as to who is the creator/maker of the feutus ... ... the Unseen , Gods , the Allah or the Courts of the so called Empires of Democracies ? Courts led by the uncivilized are nothing but the Courts of the butchers . 😢
I realize that this debate is a decade old but how refreshing is it to see smart teenagers sans smartphones relatively engaged and attentive to deep and complex subject matter.
Unlike the present day where in law schools across the country the inmates are running the asylum by violating the very Constitution they're sworn to uphold. It's one thing to have competing or occasionally compatible judicial philosophies deployed in deciding a case; it's another entirely to have ideological activists make their way to the highest court in the land to decide Constitutional issues based on "values" those activists reject. I think it's appalling for law _students_ to form as a pseudo-mob to shout down a speaker before the speaker has even said a word, and effectively sabotage the speaker's right to free speech. 1st Amendment is absolute, in that it applies to everyone -- not just a self-appointed arbiter of what is proper speech and what isn't. If that's all the more respect these _students_ have for _this_ Constitution - to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate it in order to satisfy an ideological objective - then they have failed law school and should be kicked out before they're handed a license to practice.
Antonin Scalia was such an incompetent clown. If you listen to his arguments, they are complete nonsense with no rational basis, just pathos appeals of middling efficacy. He had no ability to reason originally, his entire life and work was defined by the people he disagreed with. His entire judicial purview is a response to those he disagreed with, the man had not thought one of originality. To his family, his loss was great and I mourn for them. To America, our nation is stronger without such charlatans.
I saw this video in high school. I knew very little about politics, let alone the constitution. I didn't even know the political leanings of either Justice in this video. Upon watching this video, I started binging all other discussions between Breyer and Scalia. I've been a Conservative ever since.
Whenever they talk about the constitution evolving with time, it’s never periods of time that our a week or two weeks… It’s always used in the concert the hundreds of years… The forefathers could never have envisioned this or that. Things can evolve week by week. New technologies are here one day that weren’t here yesterday. The forefathers certainly knew that the passage of time made dramatic changes. In any case, none of these Supreme Court justices would accept the argument that something had “developed “over a short period of time and therefore should be amended in the constitution. Their sticklers on having it so far away, that it’s only interpretive.
11:50 Well, who made the Founding Fathers king? Why should we be bound to what they thought was cruel? They wouldnt even want that, if they did, they wouldve just wrote out every punishment they thought was cruel. Most of them explictly favored a "living constiution" and believed many of the immoral practices of their day, slaver for example, should be eliminated.
Pass a law if you don’t want the death penalty. The constitution doesn’t prevent you. The founders gave you a choice. That is the opposite of acting like a king
@@evanb4189 well if a right recognized in the constitution is violated the court will act. The death penalty doesn’t violate the constitution in fact it is recognized as a punishment in the 14 th amendment
The death penalty isn’t a cruel and unusual punishment according to the founders since every state in the new nation had a death penalty and the constitution refers to capital crimes. Later the 14 th amendment said death penalty could be used after due process of law. The constitution doesn’t say SCOTUS can override a state death penalty whenever a majority of it feels like it
Under Scalia's view, wouldnt every fine be unconstitutional since, due to inflation, vitrually every fine today would've been excessive to the founders?
3:23 Nice dodge, Breyer. Really graceful evasion. I had a feeling youd'd have difficulty rebutting that one, since it's so manifestly obvious and everyone in the room is nodding along to Scalia's description of what they're all seeing on CSPAN
I think there is a mix of both views. Some amendments and rights are absolute the way they have been phrased, some look to the future to apply societal standards. Like the death penalty discussion that was cited, with the phrasing being "unusual", leaving the notion it shall be interpreted with what is seen unusual at the time a case comes into question and asks for interpretation. On the other hand there are amendments like the second which leave no such interpretation open, because it defines a right that "shall not be infringed", therefore being absolute no matter the year
"There is not right or wrong for me?"......I feel it is really dangerous for a judge to say that......I apreciate both of them but I am not a lawyer,so.....I know this Universe created by God or not, function in a natural way which must be reflected in the laws....isnt t?.....and the first ever laws we accepted like human beeings were religious and moral. The secular ideas came afterwards and have less then 250 years of history....let s see how long will exist!
The originalist interpretation is whack. No one knows the minds of those who voted in 1791. If the framers specifically meant to say the death penalty is ok, they would have said it. Instead, they choose to make an ambiguous, interpretable statement about values: cruel and unusual. The level of cruelty society was willing to tolerate was simply different then than today.
Scalia is dead right about the 17th Amendment.Before that passed,every Senator represented their state.Today,all Senators represent the same state,The State Of Israel.
@@rentslave but why pick on Israel? We send military aid all over the world. Why didn’t you say the senators are from South Korea? We actually have troops in South Korea. There are no US troops in Israel
Scalia is correct on all counts. Briar is typical of most liberals in power - asserting that his job is to impose his own values as if they were the obvious correct values therefore what the people want (or would want if they could only think for themselves.) Highlighted by his desire to change the characterization of evolutionist (which is pretty innocuous and fair) to just being “caring”. Well isn’t that nice and warm and caring- to makes decisions for this country based on his own personal values and opinions rather than allow the citizens to decide. “Leave it to us we’re better than you” that is the mantra of the left in power. They just don’t say it out loud because they’re so caring and don’t want to hurt our peasant feelings.
Sadly, they all get it wrong. Constitutional does not mean moral. Our founders created a confederation of sovereign states where the states have almost unlimited lawmaking power. The Federal Government has almost no power. The judges are applying the Federal Constitution prohibitions and clarifications to the states because 80 years ago the court thought it would be a morally good idea Slavery was unconstitutionally banned because it is immoral. The reality is that the only constitutional way for society to advance is by individual states passing moral laws urged on them by the people. Indeed our founders intended everyone to judge constitutionality including states. They never intended the Supreme Court to have the last word because you would have 9 unelected kings ruling instead of the Constitution.
So great to find this. As a third year law student who’s read hundreds of SCOTUS opinions, these two’s opinions have had the most impact to me. And for different reasons, they are both incredible writers and advocates for their positions. Breyer because he is a natural teacher, has a very matter-of-fact delivery, pauses at appropriate times, goes step by step for complexities. And, most importantly, he has a kind, good-hearted demeanor that comes of just as well in his writing. It makes you trust him, and believe he really may be correct for what’s best for the country on a given matter. Scalia because he is unyielding. If you disagree with him on a point, he’ll give you ten other reasons for why you should still come to the same conclusion. Fiery and passionate. And, just like Breyer, believable. He approaches things with a sort of personal-stake in it, like you are offending something he has dear to his heart. Both make you really take it in and you walk away feeling like you thoroughly understand the position.
An unsatisfactory conclusion when you consider the Clinton finance oligopoly and bad faith in which the civil liberties of blacks and minorities suffered under his presidency (see search and seizure expansions in the 90s) but I enjoyed this conversation. More civilised conversations like this need to take place.
It's sad that such an able and wise justice like Justice Breyer is leaving the court. I hope KBJ lives up to his legacy nad ever create a legacy of her own.
