How can you not just enjoy a conversation between these two monumental pillars of American society. This video was just so entertaining it makes me wonder why I have Netflix. Breyer's is like an Eveready teacher always going in teaching mode. The late Scalia is the more reserved scholar with tremendous wit. Both are just brilliant and great role models for our children. I do miss Scalia on the court and will also miss Breyer when he retires later this tear.
I prefer Scalia's approach. However, Breyer is undeniably a serious person and thinker, which is nice in today's unserious time. They are clearly differentiating their views.
I can't stand people who argue that Justices are "idiots." They might make decisions I believe are "idiotic" (Scalia is not immune), but they are probably, at any point, nine of the 1000 smartest people in the country.
@@briandunlap3243 I’d like to think that what it really is, is being open and looking at one case from possibly 1000’s of points of views. That is something that isn’t impossible to achieve but it certainly is rare to have that level of openness in terms of mental boundaries.
@@briandunlap3243 whilst I can understand and appreciate the approaches of the more conservative judges on the court, Alito is truly an idiot and deserves to be called as such
@@briandunlap3243 absolutely! You can say son decisions that justices make are wrong, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know how to adjudicate, whether it’s Scalia or Breyer. It’s also arrogant to assume that a random person who has no years of legal training or judicial experience somehow knows the Constitution more than a Supreme Court Justice.
Scalia's an insensitive guy who doesn't consider how his rulings will affect actual real people. We should be more concerned with how the people living today would like to see their constitution, not how the founders wanted it. The founders are dead.
"Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide." --John Adams "soon" relative to centuries, not years.
I just LOVE listening to this stuff. Both brilliant. But also important to note how they are able to disagree without "offending" each other! HAHA. I also LOVE how Scalia maintains the idea of states rights in his points that the Constitution does not preclude states from outlawing or sanctioning things like abortion or the death penalty. I'm a big fan and supporter of the 3rd article of the US Constitution. I LOATH how the media misinforms the public on their role and purpose.
listening to Breyer I see "The living breathing" aspect of the constitution. Scalia is on point, specific and reasoned starting with the constitution that guides him to his conclusion where Breyer starts with his conclusion and then runs to the constitution to extract it from some article.
Breyer never challenged Scalias arguments about abortion, due process, equal rights. He seemed to deflect and describe something else that seemed close, but was not even talking about the same thing Scalia was talking about. For example, Breyers challenge in researching the history of the ex post facto, and the rhetorical question of having historians instead of judges, never addressed the issue that Scalia had with the living constitution - there is plenty of history about what people thought about abortion. There is no question or ambiguity on that subject - so what does the lack of history on ex post facto have to do with abortion? Nothing. So deciding to change the laws around abortion, ignoring the historical application appears to violate the democratic process. Breyer says that it's done carefully with checks and balances, yet does not explain how those checks and balances refute the historical interpretations. Who voted on this? Why is this being done by the Supreme Court, and not through the legislature or the amendment process?
@@Igneous01 Scalia has said very clearly he thinks that these social issues are best debated and legislated not ruled upon by nine judges. May liberal activists, intellectuals, and politicians like SCOTUS ruling on these type of issues because it is final and non debatable. In my view very troubling.
@@garyc3936 Scalia plainly stated that his personal certainty that Roe and then Casey were bad decision by SCOTUS, his official position as a justice was since the issue has been settled through SCOTUS the legal concept of "Stare Decisis" precedent, is the rule. That is a fair mind.
It's so pleasant to listen to someone so logically powerful and thorough during such an insane zombie era. Scalia and I would disagree on some pretty substantive issues, but foundationally immaculate. No one understands that in modern times. No one.
Jon Lanni that would be ironic unless it was the other way around. Irony implies a notion of being a reverse or the other way around. It’s not ironic if I bring an umbrella and it rains, it’s convenient.
Constitution laws or any laws are established for respecting, following and obeying instead of debating. Supreme Court is explaining the laws for people to understand the definitions of the laws and doing better things. If laws are established, but by debating often, then Supreme Court’s existence becomes irrelevant quickly. Understand the definitions of the laws by reviewing and reading often will help us to understand better quickly. Even though anyone wants to change, still many processes to go through by laws. One day before change, one day laws are still valid. Otherwise any laws can’t function, because even established, still can be debatable or ignored, then why establish any laws. However, any laws established, but any laws have boundaries as well as loopholes too. No ways to avoid any loopholes, even sharpest lawyers, because we are all humans without being perfect, but with the basic pictures there only. During the critical time, it maybe the time for us to review, understand more by learning more to understand more to do better things together to avoid future mistakes toward our country America’s greatness and Americans’ happiness as our learning opportunities for learning experiences. Afterwards govern by standards of the laws together again as one indivisible nation America’s recognitions and principles together to ensure greatness together again. Without critical time, we won’t even think about it at all. Every civilized country established their own laws to avoid Communism ideologies system, Nazism ideologies system and Terrorism ideologies system to be evolving, peaceful societies without looting, robberies and killings as safe societies to live and build own countries’ greatness, to avoid dictatorships, equality of rights, equality of opportunities as well as equality of justice altogether. Also every country of any systems, any influences can be existing to either adopt, imitate, or resist. This is why America’s civilized system can’t let influence to change America’s greatness by America’s recognitions and principles, but by own standards of the Constitution laws as the basic principles for all to learn from, understand from and do better together by respecting Constitution laws together. However, it may take quite long time for us as immigrant Americans or green card America residents, or purely across borders of foreigners to understand America’s recognitions and principles quickly. Immigrant Americans need long time to gradually adapt, understand well through learning curve together. Sometimes even Native Americans, if don’t learn, also can’t understand well too. Green card residents often not obligated to learn before they choose to be American citizens or not. Across the boarder foreigners won’t be cared about naturally, because this is not their country at all. Normally, all Americans are extremely busy always without much time to review laws, especially laws are extremely complicated by different categories of different laws. Most politicians may done great things, better things, somethings, okay things, maybe also can make mistakes too. As a great nation America 🇺🇸 still needs peace and harmony to focus on changing mistakes, getting things done right and quickly, togetherness as one indivisible nation for America’s own recognitions and principles to govern together through learning curve towards greatness, strength and Americans’ happiness by own Constitution laws together peacefully and harmoniously with each other’s greater hearts as America 🇺🇸 and Americans together, because this is America 🇺🇸 and we are all Americans as one nation to ensure America’s future greatness, strength and happiness for independence and own sovereignty together by unity instead of by splitting. Learning curve will help us understand better and do better, getting things done right and better quickly. Also, govern bylaws afterwards together again quickly. So America 🇺🇸 will be great, strong and happy together again. Americans will understand better to be good citizens together. World will be happy to see America’s unity back for freedoms, entrepreneurship spirit and equality of opportunity for peace in the world efforts again. God Bless our country America always.
What did the German soldier say to the French soldier? German soldier: "Is that you Pierre?" French soldier: (pops up out of trench) "Oui, c'est moi!" German soldier: (BOOM)
To the late Justice Scalia, all opinions are written for the public. Many dissenting opinions at the Supreme Court level makes you wonder if the majority is accurate in their analysis.
Both Scalia and Breyer have a point: It’s important to look at the intent of those who wrote the words of the Constitution while also seeing how those very words would apply to modern day situations. Personally, I prefer Breyer’s approach.
Unless by looking at the "intention", you use your assumption to judge the intention of the person writing the law, while ignoring what is written within the law. You can say "the purpose of the law" is to do good and remove evil, therefore everything I claim to be good is written within the law. That's just legal and logical stupidity. That trend of delusions might have taken us by surprised but no more. We will set the society back to logic and civility.
@John Danielson - Ignore Mark Armage. Your comment is balanced and very sensible. Just like Scalia and Thomas, he wants to do no real thinking at all. Very insensitive guys. Gorsuch is the next scariest on the court. Just look at the Minnesota trucker case.
@John Danielson - Ignore Mark Armage. Your comment is balanced and very sensible. Just like Scalia and Thomas, he wants to do no real thinking at all. Very insensitive guys. Gorsuch is the next scariest on the court. Just look at the Minnesota trucker case.
@@bherber So again, which case, kids? I'm an insensitive to your feelings. Just like how you are insensitive to countless other people who participated in the Democratic Process by trying to apply your barbarism on us. We civilized people will push barbarians to where you belong. Someplace not that nice. And you can't stop us, unlike you, we have the votes. What do you have? Your feelings?
There's nothing "modern" about "modern situations". Human nature remains unchanged throughout human history. The Constitution was correctly written to tightly restrain the government due to the adverse impact of human nature. Scalia was absolutely correct. Breyer, while he has honor and integrity, is still absolutely incorrect.
I like Them both as people. Good people.. will leave it at that.. the rest .. is way over my head lol.. some will say .. well .. learn! .. I prefer not too lol
I think Breyer has just the better arguments. Scalia simply ignores that 1) In many disputes which concern basic rights pure majority rule is NO due process. One VERY important task of high courts is to protect minorities! And as Scalia said - the majority of the people wants such a thing as a Supreme Court. But why do they want this? Exactly because for almost everyone there are issues where he/she is "in a minority"..! Uncontrolled majority rule just leads directly into dictatorship and is much more dangerous than any fragile "construction" made to guarantee a right. 2) Government representatives often execute their power arbitraily, and so laws have to be made which really install detailed rights. If there is a lack of such laws there must be a court to fill this gap! 3) The US constitution DOES contain an explicit right to privacy, and this partly affects even such a tough topic like abortion. The right to privacy fully guarantees that any law which forbids to sell or use contraceptives is unconstitutional in the US. It is especially ridiculous that self-appointed "conservatives" deny privacy! On the other hand in the USA there is a clear constitutional right to bear arms individually and so I never understood how liberals can deny this..! It is not liberal at all to forbid weapons for citizens while police and army are heavily armed.
I am a Democrat. I am also a textualist - thought not an originalist. I believe the Framers would not have approached the Constitution the way Scalia did. Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, for example, are supported by the text itself and the men who drafted the 14th Amendment, as well as decades of precious precedent in the Court. The text doesn't end in 1792. It is truly a document that is living and continues to be altered and added to. Our Founder's didn't expect the Constitution to be frozen in time and unalterable.
1. _It is truly a document that is living and continues to be altered and added to_ Huh?? Who has authority to "alter" the constitution?? 2. Roe supported by "text itself"??? Where??? 3. _Our Founder's didn't expect the Constitution to be frozen in time and unalterable_ How do you know?? Do you understand the purpose of a constitution is to be enduring??
@@wernerfoerster3666 1. The Congress does. Article V lays out this process saying in short "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified..." 2. Roe is part of a long line of other cases including Griswold v. Connecticut (effectively made contraceptive use legal by declaring bans on their use unconstitutional), Loving v. Virginia (decalred interracial marriage bans unconstitutional), Lawrence v. Texas (effectively decriminalized homosexuality by striking down all sodomy laws as unconstitutional), and Obergefell v. Hodges (de aired bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, making gay marriage legal in 50 states). What all of these have in common is that they were decided on a single principle called the Right to Privacy. It is extrapolated from the text of the XIVth Amendment and supported by text of the IXth. If the most politically motivated and far-right extremist High Court in our history can undo Roe with no consideration about stare decisis or the Right to Privacy, it threatens to permanently undermine public trust in the Court. They would effectively be undoing the principle on which 60 years of landmark cases have been decided and reaffirmed. 3. I know because the Founders told us. Jefferson says it best - "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
@@JacobSnell1998 1. Yes, I understand the amendment process. Your comment that the constitution "continues to be altered and added to" caused me to think you were referring to judicial interpretation. When most (all) commentators speak of a living constitution, they are not referring the well settled amendment process to give it life. With that said, I am grateful for your answer. 2a. You do understand stare decisis is not an absolute, right? Without a willingness to on occasion over rule cases which were wrongly decided, we would still have schools segregated by race, et cetera. Thoroughly read Justice Alito's draft opinion re the issue and the long list of cases which have been overruled over the history of the Court - it cannot be stated any better. 2b. Yes, we all understand the bastardization process which lead to ridiculous concepts of "substantive due process" and the hocus pocus of creating rights which are not actually set forth in the TEXT. Hence my question/ request for you to point out the "text itself" as you claimed in your original comment. Your answer that Roe rationale must be "extrapolated" illustrates my point, to wit: the Roe holding does not exist in the "text itself". 2c. The majority in current Court is politically motivated? They are "far-right"? SMH. Are there politically motivated justices on the left? Far-leftists on the Court? 2d. Did Roe in 1973 "permanently undermine public trust in the Court" with the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of US citizens who were appalled?? Or does your analysis apply only if leftists feelings are hurt? The Roe opinion, even according to liberal scholars, was a piece of trash in its reasoning and justification. It seems to me that opinion would have undermined trust. 3. Perhaps you are again referring to the amendment process. If so, I am in full agreement. The founders certainly never endorsed a rainbow and sunshine "living constitution" method of interpretation wherein the kings of the SCOTUS would decide what rights OUGHT to exist as they thought best. Please listen to all of the interviews with Scalia.
@@wernerfoerster3666 I would have wrote a full answer to each point had you been more polite and less snarky about things, but I will still address a few things. 1. I agree the Court is not designed to legislate and that role belongs to the Congress and the respective State Legislatures. However, the principle of substantive due process is a concept that can be supported by the Ninth Amendment. In my mind this is the Amendment that those of a more progressive and more liberal persuasion interpret much more broadly than those of a conservative one. I do also believe as time goes on we must interpret the writings.
I love Scalia at 24:30, and his disdain for the idiocy of the precepts of a "living Constitution", and the ducking and weaving of Breyer to try to legitimize it. Scalia, "That's the living Constitution I wish would die".. Touche! And further at 35:00 Scalia throwing democracy (mob rule) into the mix, comparing rights as empty bottles, where each generation can fill them with their "modern" interpretations based upon the evolution of their social norms and morality. His phrase "That's what the Bill of Rights is, limits on the majority, which are applied through the Judges..." is simple and eloquent, just like the Bill of Rights the socialist Justices have such a hard time with.
Jezziz CHRIST. Breyer spoke for at least 2/3rds (if not 3/4ths). Talk about painful. He knows being an "ACTIVIST" is an INSULT ... yet it's exactly how he rules. (sic)
The one problem is that people like Scalia and those who agree with him will probably never be in trouble with the law. Very insensitive individuals. I'd like to see Scalia be arrested for something, and then see how his views change...
@@servantsimbai well that is the ideal way of course lol. I'm just saying a lot of people say throw the book at people until something happens to them or family... (Even speeding tickets or DUIs)
@@servantsimbai - For me, yes. For you? I have no idea. I'm worried about all people though... Scalia? No, he's not. Breyer, yes he seems to be. You? Probably not... Take care
@@bherberYou are only worried about self-indulgent culprits. Those are the ones you call 'all people'. Their victims? No! And you know why? Because both you and Brier, perhaps many others out there who want to eat their cake and have it too, are populists.
The difference between Breyer and Scalia is humility. Scalia is humble enough to admit it is not his place to force his opinion upon the nation; Breyer is so self assured that he has the wisdom to decide that whatever he wants is best.
I tend to think that Breyer is more Gifted than Scalia, because he thinks more abstractly. He's more detailed and abstracts properties that differing eras exhibit where Scalia, though tries to think about the details of cases from founding era and see parallels between different eras, can't see that abstract concepts seem to be driving interpretative constitutional lenses. Scalia is more concrete in legal thought; and though Scalia able to think about issues I tend to agree with in some sense, Breyer is undeniably more gifted.
Scalia is always so concerned with the damn founders, but the founders are dead. I'm more concerned with people living today and how Supreme Court decisions will affect the living.
@dream coaster - I happen to be a free market capitalist who voted for Trump & owns his own business.. So far, you appear to be an angry guy who shouts in all caps & is afraid to use his own name...
@dream coaster - Checked your links. If you're talking about tariffs, actually the Smoot Hawley tariffs were signed in by Hoover, not FDR. The shortages are the result of shutting down the economy completely and then jump starting it again at full speed. Full warehouses & not enough truck drivers.
@dream coaster - Bet you didn't expect this but I'm a big history buff so know all about Smoot Hawley & love WWII history as well. Are you done shouting in all caps? Want to use your real name yet or still hiding in your mom's basement using a fake name?
@UCz8zuFVxVoVf-9vgbjDe3-A - Did I defend president Biden? Nope, I don't think so... I'm also independent. I don't hold any president in such a high regard that he's a god. I'm well aware there's inflation. The stock market in the short term is volatile, but in the long run evens out so is a better place for your money than a savings account. First you called me a communist; now you're calling me "my friend."
There's nothing difficult about interpreting boundaries. Two ideologies have always controlled human behavior. Progressive Ideology: Wealth and power belong to all the people. Fascist Ideology: Wealth and power belong to the greedy, zealous few. Despite its flaws, the U.S. Constitution is based on Progressive Ideology; therefore, every ruling of the SCOTUS should be based on Progressive Ideology. Pretty simple.
More than anyone else, Scalia caused the American people to lose faith in the Court, and appellate courts generally. He spent years writing opinions and giving countless speeches which unjustly delegitimized his colleagues' judicial philosophy. This was unprecedented in its scope. And, from his speeches and opinions, it entered the public discourse (media, campaigns), to the extent that the Court is now seen as entirely partisan. Yes, he may have said the weasel words, 'I believe my colleagues are sincere and non-partisan in their philosophies', but make no mistake - he was the greatest and most dishonest 'judicial activist' of them all.
You're just unhappy with the way Scalia would dismember left wing ideological garbage with his opinions. He made mincemeat out of the whole living constitution nonsense.
