I can not help but well up in tears on the last segment when he stated he is not in it for the sake of his legacy. Like him or not, this wonderful man has the highest reverence to his profession and to the constitution of the United States. You are sorely missed Justice Scalia. I hope and pray your influence will steadily grow in every law school faculty.
I had the same reaction at the same point in the interview. Two years later, I'm still emotional over his death. I truly love Justice Scalia and miss him very much. Thank you for saying all of that.
I'm also a bit saddened by how many times he makes the same statements and yet not one of those many times have really made it to the general public that well. For example, I can't count how many times he's mentioned that the reason why you have to be a lawyer to become a Justice of the Supreme Court is because there's "lawyer's work" between cases that needs to be done.
If the Constitution only means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean it. Then we wouldn't need the Constitution. In other words the textual meaning is the only meaning we should be using. Scalia is right on all counts.
Amazing to hear him speak about the political polarization of universities nearly a decade ago. I had no idea the entire faculty of Amherst College boycotted his lecture. It blows my mind that 'educated' Americans would miss the opportunity the hear a sitting supreme court justice, and ask him questions. The people these groups decide to boycott blows my mind. Not a single person I can think of in the past decade that has been subject to this kind of action is even remotely frightening.
Great interview. Peter does a great job, the two times I've seen him interview Scalia, it has also been the best interviews I've ever seen of the Justice.
Many thanks for posting this enlightening discussion! I have always felt that Justice Scalia is a national treasure and an intellectual titan. I'm grateful for his presence and his influence. I find it worrisome indeed that the trend in too many of our institutions of higher learning is, in Justice Scalia's own words, "diversity in everything except in ideas."
Fast forward to 2020, and his legacy lives on in a new appointment to the Court. Thank you Justice Scalia, and Trump. We must preserve the system, are we lose it all.
in layman's terms: 1) you(the people) created a rule book to a game. 2) you give him the task of reading the rules back to you. 3) if u don't like what the book says, YOU can change the rules 4) but don't set the new rules in stone just yet. i don't have any law qualifications... but that's what i got out of this.... am i wrong?
I think you probably just misunderstand Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court as I once did. I used to believe that it was the job of a Justice to sit on the court and decide what laws are good,bad, just, unjust etc., but rather their proper role is to tell us what the law is, not what it should be.
I believe the rules of the laws of the constitutions as a country is extremely important. It's not only important in the past, it's important presently as well as the future. Because every country has their own constitutions as the rules of the laws to follow. The ones are not following the constitutions will be only either the terrorism countries or the dictatorship countries. Because without the rule of laws of the constitutions, the principals of America's foundation of the Capitalism system of the liberty and entrepreneurship will be disappeared immediately. Because only America's own constitutions is the guarantees of the protection of our country's foundation. I believe this is also our Founding Fathers's intentions and wishes of made sure that America's own foundation will be 100% to be protected for the reasons of our country's constitutions and even must be sweared by every President in their inaugurations to maitain, protect and defend our country's own constitutions absolutely protecte our country's foundation of the Capitalism system of the liberty and entrepreneurship. Because they are the ones established the United States of the America as well as the America's own foundation and own constitutions to make sure America will be prosperous and Americans will be able enjoy the benefits of the Capitalism system of the liberty and entrepreneurship forever and guaranteed by our own constitutions forever. This is the principals of America and as well as any love to become American citizens must aware and recognize and abide. Because this is America and it's symptoms of America's exceptionalism of the Capitalism system of the liberty. When we are talking about the Constitutions are dead. I believe that the America's own rules of the laws should never be ignored and forgotten and never be allowed to let them to be dead. Because it can be dangerous for America's prosperity and foundations and safety. If without the constitutions, our county will be lawless, the lawless will be no difference with any terrorism or dictatorship countries at all. That means our country's entire Capitalism system will be completely changed and become either the terrorism country or the dictatorship system. This will absolutely against our country's own symptoms of the Capitalism system of the liberty and entrepreneurship. Obviously, we are not in any a bit similarities to the terrorism or dictatorship countries. Because our own America's foundation and America's constitutions will never allow this to be happened by our America's own foundation and constitutions as well as America's patriotism and loyalty and principles. Since we are a fully established, civilized and developed country, we should easily stand up by America's own principals to follow up our own foundation by our own America's constitutions fimly and strongly. Our country's constitutions are there for Americans to follow, not the other way around to let people to ignore or forget or see it as dead. If this is what going to happen, it will be absolutely the alarms for our country's top leaderships as the attentions. Because without the rules of the laws, country will be disfunctioned and disordered. When we are talking about the Row vs. Wade, I believe our Gov't should never encourage any mom to enthusiastically kill her own kind future babies by cruelties, unless being raped or unhealthy ones. Because they are our own human kind and as well as our country's own great future population resources and valuable assets for our country's future prosperity. If we protect the animals, why should be cruel to our own kind? If we try hard to treat others by our loving-kindness, we should start from our own kind unborn babies first. Because I don't believe any mom who can be cruel to her own unborn babies will decently take care others by her real loving-kindness nature as well as the great country as the United States of the America. Talking about the death penalty, I believe our laws are there to protect our country's inocent law obeying citizens. If one murdered another, it's not fair to the inocent dead one. Our country's laws is not there to protect the criminals, they are there to maitain the orders, to protect the law obeying Americans. This is why the constitutions are absolutely important to follow and never should be ignored. This is why I believe both Parties must work together for our country's foundation and symptoms and future by our own America's constitutions and principles for our country's future, not by the Partisans, otherwise it's iresponsible to our country and America's own foundation as well as the American people. We must only working together by the principles and get correct things done with our generous mind, follow our rules of the laws of the constitutions for America's prosperity, dignity, security and safety. I believe Gov.Bush's background of the America's patriotism and loyalty and principles of the America's foundation, his own proven successful governing leadership experiences, if he select someone young with the America's spirit and patriosm together with Gov.Bush's great governing leadership experiences, our county will be prosperous quickly and easily. Because surely the proven successful governing leadership experiences are extremely important to our country's future.
He stands for a needed antipole for out of control pragmatism. Though i myself am more a pragmatist, but every theory, every point of view needs rationality and reason. And the main motor for this reason to be produced is opposition. That is what Scalia gives and that is why he deserves very much respect.
At 18:00, Robinson asks what social phenomenon has caused the shift to a living constitution, etc. Scalia said he didn't know. Perhaps the cause is the shift to personal autonomy as people's highest priority, which has resulted not in "evolving standards of decency [in a ] maturing society," but in devolving standards of decency in a society that is growing increasingly immature? After all, did ancient Rome become more "mature" over the centuries? Or did they decline into personal autonomy and pleasure and that's why their civilization fell?
@joshke17 Even if I disagree with him, and I have many times, I must respect his intellectual honesty and his attention to legal detail. Plus he tries to put that into readable language rather then legalese.
Equal Protection applies in certain circumstances. Homosexual marriage is not one of them. You can organize and put it to a vote. It is not for the judicial branch to legislate for the bench. It is very eassy if you take the time to learn how our system was designed. It was not created in a month. It took alot of effort. A civil union is the legal equivilent of marriage. Traditionally, marriage is between two individuals of the opposite sex.
@MrWsad Being rigid in the interpretation of the constitution IS being impartial. Changing the interpretation based on day to day whims like the liberal judges are in favor of doing is not impartial because it depends on the political opinions of the judge.
@italoirish888 The reason supreme court arguments aren't televised is because television makes court participants change their behavior. Your assertion that they conduct business behind closed doors is also incorrect. They issue rulings and opinions which are available for the public to read freely. Just because you don't want to read the opinions doesn't justify televising court proceedings.
the controversy, and i think justice black was at the head of it, was of whether the bill of rights applied to the states. jusitce hugo black said it did. on another note im VERY curious to see how justice scalia decides to rule on the upcoming case that is to decide whether the states can prohibit firearms. we all know the federal govt cannot, but
Scalia’s distaste for the doctrine of Incorporation is ironic considering a year later in McDonald v. Chicago he wrote the opinion that incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states.
Scalia keeps talking about the 'exceptions to the majority's will in the Bill of Rights' but I've also heard him say that the Gitlow v NY (I believe) decision is "probably wrong" and under originalist interpretation, the Bill of Rights only did apply to the states.Then how is the Bill of Rights an exception to the will of the majority if the state isn't bounded (according to originalist views of the incorporation doctrine) by the Bill of Rights and can take away free speech, property etc?
@Iobi123 What do you mean by 'enacts' abortion? Do you mean require? I would think under Justice Scalia's view, since the Constitution is silent regarding abortion, Congress/the States could enact laws prohibiting abortion just as well as laws actually REQUIRING abortions... I think this would be the only consistent viewpoint...
I'm not sure how to understand, then, Scalia's agreement with the core decision in Brown. After all, the Congress that drafted the Civil War Amendments turned around and segregated the D.C. public schools. So either the actions of past generations are not dispositive (past generations could have failed to live up to the meaning of their own standards) or Brown was incorrectly decided.
@mandowalt, justice scalia is saying that congress makes the laws. lets say congress made a law that enacts abortion, would he affirm that? i thought he affirmed that under originalism it should be prohibited, but natural law affirms enactment of abortion.
You assume that it is the Constitution that sets all social, religious and political parameters, when in fact it is mostly statutory law that deals with those issues. If you want to change the "social and religious or political parameters" you need only persuade your fellow citizens to pass a law that will bring such a change about.
@wilthiswork Except they did not "turn around" and segregate the D.C. public schools. First, segregation was already in place before the passing of the 14th Amendment -- instituted by an earlier Congress, and not the one that proposed the amendment. Second, the 14th Amendment applies to the states, and not to the District of Columbia, so what D.C. did is hardly relevant to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
@USAHistory1 How many of those 200 years was it even in question? The only gun control laws i am aware of before pretty late into the 20th century were racist laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of Blacks. If you consider requiring merchants of fire arms to be registered then i guess it would be earlier (1934) but certainly not 200 years Abortion on the other hand is an ancient practice.
"Thou shalt not lie" is not one of the Ten Commandments; rather, it reads "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I hope he knows the Constitution better than he knows the Bible.
The ultimate end point of Justice Scalia's approach to Constitutional law is this; whatever social and religious or political parameters existed in 1789 is what we must live by today. I refuse to believe this man thinks the best form of government is to rewrite the Consitution every forty years to tell him what we want in each generation. His disengenuous view of the 14th leaves him no explaination for Justice Thomas sitting next to him and is a refusal to see he participates in interpretation.
Great man, great judge, however his interpretative style can be clearly anomalous with, or repugnant to, the will of the people at time the law is being interpreted. It's a intellectually sound interpretive style, at least compartively speaking. Still, perfection escapes any principle so rigid in it's application. I have a great deal of respect for anyone so dedicated to the rule of law. Such a humble man too, not esoteric or pompous at all.
