Justice Scalia On Life Part 1
Summary
TLDRIn this interview, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discusses his judicial philosophy of originalism, emphasizing the importance of interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent. He addresses controversial topics like abortion and the Bush v. Gore case, asserting that the Constitution is meant to impede change, not facilitate it. Despite being a polarizing figure, Scalia's friendship with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg highlights his belief in separating personal relationships from professional disagreements. His candid and combative nature is evident as he defends his views and critiques those of his colleagues.
Takeaways
- 👨⚖️ Antonin Scalia was a renowned Supreme Court Justice known for his originalist philosophy, interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning.
- 🗣️ Justice Scalia was a strong advocate for originalism, arguing that the Constitution should be understood as it was intended by those who ratified it.
- 🔍 He criticized 'living Constitution' interpretations, which suggest the Constitution evolves with societal changes, as he believed this approach allows judges to create rights not explicitly mentioned.
- 💬 In discussions about abortion rights, Scalia emphasized that while he personally might not agree with a right to abortion, the Constitution does not address it, and such rights should be created democratically through legislation.
- 🏛️ He was a polarizing figure, with critics viewing his originalist stance as a means to reverse progressive court decisions, while supporters appreciated his strict adherence to constitutional text.
- 👥 Justice Scalia had a close friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite their differing judicial philosophies, demonstrating his ability to separate personal relationships from professional disagreements.
- ✍️ Known for his sharp and witty writing style, Scalia used colorful language and references in his opinions to engage readers and clarify his points.
- 🗯️ He was not afraid to use strong language when criticizing the opinions of his fellow justices, showing his commitment to his beliefs even when it meant得罪 colleagues.
- 🔑 In the controversial case of Bush v. Gore, Scalia defended the court's decision as a correct interpretation of the law, not a political one, and stood by the originalist approach in his reasoning.
- 🌍 Scalia's influence extended beyond the United States, as he was an evangelist for originalism, promoting it in various international forums, including the Oxford Union.
Q & A
Who is Antonin Scalia and what is he known for?
-Antonin Scalia was a Supreme Court justice, known for his brilliance and combative nature. He was one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation, championing the philosophy of originalism, which involves interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning.
What does the term 'originalism' refer to in the context of Scalia's judicial philosophy?
-Originalism refers to the judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it, rather than adapting it to changing societal values.
How does Justice Scalia view the concept of a 'living Constitution'?
-Justice Scalia criticizes the concept of a 'living Constitution', arguing that it is not a correct approach to interpreting the Constitution. He believes that the Constitution is enduring and should not be seen as a document that changes with societal values.
What is Scalia's stance on the role of judges in creating rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?
-Scalia has no patience with judges who create rights not found in the Constitution, such as the right to abortion. He believes that such rights should be created democratically through legislation, not by judicial interpretation.
How does Justice Scalia feel about the public's perception of him?
-Justice Scalia is aware that he is a polarizing figure and that many people strongly dislike him due to his views. However, he emphasizes that his interpretive philosophy is often misunderstood, and he believes in democratic progress, not stasis.
What was Justice Scalia's role in the Bush v. Gore case?
-Justice Scalia played a significant role in the Bush v. Gore case, where he was part of the majority that ended the Florida recount, effectively deciding the 2000 presidential election in favor of George Bush. He defended the decision as the right interpretation of the Constitution.
How does Justice Scalia respond to critics who claim his decisions are based on his social beliefs rather than legal philosophy?
-Scalia asserts that while he is a social conservative, his personal beliefs do not affect his legal decisions. He emphasizes that his philosophy of originalism is the sole criterion he uses to interpret the Constitution.
What is Justice Scalia's view on the relationship between the Constitution and societal change?
-Scalia believes that societal change should occur through democratic processes, such as legislation, rather than through constitutional interpretation. He sees the Constitution as a means to impede change, making it deliberate and difficult.
How does Justice Scalia describe his writing style on the court?
-Justice Scalia is known for his bold and colorful writing style. He uses literary references and clear language to make his opinions interesting and accessible, aiming to persuade readers to engage with his legal arguments.
What is Justice Scalia's opinion on the use of torture in the context of law enforcement?
-While Scalia personally does not like torture, he has argued that certain forms of coercion, such as those used in Abu Ghraib, may not fall under the constitutional prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishment' if they are aimed at extracting information rather than punishing a crime.
How does Justice Scalia describe his approach to judging and his relationships with his fellow justices?
-Scalia emphasizes that he attacks ideas, not people, and maintains good relationships with his fellow justices, even when they have differing views. He respects their views but believes they are wrong, and he approaches judging with a commitment to originalism and the rule of law.
Outlines
👨⚖️ The Life and Philosophy of Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia, renowned for his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, is profiled in this segment. Known as 'Nino' among friends, Scalia is depicted as a brilliant and combative jurist. His major television interview covers topics like abortion and Bush v. Gore, reflecting his dedication to originalism—the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally understood. Scalia criticizes 'living Constitution' theories, advocating for democratic processes to drive societal changes, not judicial activism. Despite his conservative views, Scalia is noted for his friendships with more liberal colleagues, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, highlighting his respect for differing ideas and his commitment to judicial philosophy over personal beliefs.
📜 Scalia on Originalism and Judicial Writing
This paragraph delves into Justice Scalia's unwavering commitment to originalism, even when it leads to outcomes he personally disagrees with, such as the protection of flag-burning under the First Amendment. It also explores his relationships with fellow justices, particularly his friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite their ideological differences. The narrative showcases Scalia's writing style, which is both bold and accessible, using quotes and references to make legal opinions engaging. His approach to legal writing is contrasted with his direct and sometimes harsh criticism of his colleagues' opinions, revealing a complex figure who is both charming and combative.
🏛️ Scalia's Views on Bush v. Gore and Judicial Decisions
Justice Scalia addresses the controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, asserting that the Supreme Court acted correctly based on the constitutional issues presented. He refutes claims that the decision was politically motivated, emphasizing that the court's role was to evaluate the legality of the Florida recount process. Scalia also discusses his public engagement on complex issues like torture, providing his perspective that certain actions, while detestable, may not be covered by constitutional provisions like 'cruel and unusual punishment' when they are aimed at extracting information rather than punishment. This section offers insight into Scalia's judicial philosophy and his confidence in the correctness of his interpretations.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Antonin Scalia
💡Originalism
💡Living Constitution
💡Activist Judges
💡Bush v. Gore
💡Judicial Philosophy
💡Constitutional Rights
💡Supreme Court Justice
💡Oxford Union
💡Torture
💡Roe v. Wade
Highlights
Antonin Scalia, known as Nino, was a brilliant and combative Supreme Court justice.
Scalia was a prominent legal thinker and a champion of originalism, interpreting the Constitution as it was originally intended.
He disagreed with the concept of a 'living Constitution' that adapts to changing societal values.
Scalia believed in democratic progress, not judicial creation of rights like abortion.
He advocated for changes in society to be made through legislatures, not by judicial interpretation.
Scalia was often seen as a polarizing figure, attracting both admiration and strong criticism.
Despite being labeled a counter-revolutionary, Scalia insisted his philosophy was about democratic progress, not personal beliefs.
He had a close friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite their differing judicial philosophies.
Scalia was known for his bold and colorful writing style, which he used to make legal opinions interesting.
He did not take disagreements with fellow justices personally, focusing on the ideas rather than the individuals.
Scalia played a pivotal role in the controversial Bush v. Gore case, which decided the 2000 US Presidential election.
He defended the decision in Bush v. Gore as being based on judicial philosophy, not politics.
Scalia discussed the issue of torture, arguing that 'cruel and unusual punishment' does not apply to acts of law enforcement in custody.
He was unapologetic about his views and confident in his judicial philosophy, even when it led to unpopular decisions.
Scalia's public profile included discussions on various complex and controversial issues, demonstrating his commitment to originalism.
He was admired for his ability to be both charming and combative, showing a different side to his public image.
Transcripts
not many Supreme Court justices become
famous
Antonin Scalia is one of the few known
as Nino to his friends and colleagues he
is one of the most brilliant and
combative justices ever to sit on the
court and one of the most prominent
legal thinkers of his generation he
first agreed to talk to us last spring
about a new book he's written about how
lawyers should address the court
but over the course of several
conversations our story grew into a
full-fledged profile his first major
television interview including
discussions about abortion and Bush v
Gore at 72 Justice Scalia is still a
maverick championing of philosophy known
as originalism which means interpreting
the Constitution based on what it
originally meant to the people who
ratified it over 200 years ago Justice
Scalia has no patience with so-called
activist judges who create rights and
not in the Constitution like a right to
abortion by interpreting the
Constitution as a living document that
adapts to changing values well what's
wrong with the living Constitution
what's wrong with that what's wrong with
it is it's it's wonderful imagery and it
puts me on the defensive as defending
presumably a dead Constitution well it
is an enduring Constitution that I want
to defend but what you're saying is
let's let's try to figure out the
mindset of people back 200 years ago
right mindset it's it's what what did
the words mean to the people who
ratified the Bill of Rights or who
ratified the Constitution as opposed to
what people today thinking as opposed to
what people today would like but you do
admit that values change we we do adapt
we move fine and so do laws change
because values change legislatures
abolish the death penalty permit
same-sex marriage if they want abolish
laws against homosexual conduct that's
how the change in a society occurs
society doesn't change to a constitution
he's on
mission as an evangelist for originalism
at home and around the world welcome
Justice Antonin Scalia here he is at the
Oxford Union in England sometimes people
come up to me and and and and in quiet
you know Justice Scalia when did you
when did you first become an originalist
you know it is oh it's some some weird
affliction you know when did you start
eating human flesh they may be laughing
but in the US Justice Scalia is a
polarizing figure who invites protesters
and picketers there haven't been many
Supreme Court justices who become this
much of a lightning rod I'm surprised at
how many people really really hate you
these are some things we've been told
he's evil he's a Neanderthal he's gonna
drag us back to 1789 they're threatened
by what you represent and what you
believe in these are people that don't
don't understand what my interpretive
philosophy is I'm not saying no progress
I'm saying we should progress
democratically you you think there ought
to be a right to abortion no problem the
Constitution says nothing about it
create it the way most rights are
created in a Democratic Society pass a
law and that law unlike a constitutional
right to abortion created by a court can
can compromise it can see oh I was gonna
say it can split the baby I should not
use
a constitution is not meant to
facilitate change it is meant to impede
change to make it difficult to change
but as critics argue that originalism
is a cover for what they see as Justice
Scalia's real intention to turn back
some pivotal Court decisions of the 60s
and 70s
you've been labeled a counter-revolution
counter-revolutionary the idea being
sounds exciting the critics say his aim
is to undo roe v-- wade and affirmative
action and allow more religion in public
life the public sense of view is that
you make your decisions based on your
social belief so what that is the
perception I'm a law-and-order guy I
mean I I confess I'm a social
conservative but it does not it does not
affect my my views on cases his
philosophy has occasionally led him to
decisions he deplores like his upholding
the constitutionality of flag-burning
as he told a group of students in
Missouri if it was up to me I would have
thrown in the other this the bearded
sandal-wearing flag burner into jail
but it was not up to me to Scalia
flag-burning was protected by the
founding fathers in the First Amendment
which is his only criterion he says
under originalism but do you respect
that there is another way to look at
this you know the story of a Baptist
preacher who was asked if he if he
believed in in total immersion baptism
and he said believe in it why I've seen
it done I have to say the same thing
about your question or are there are I
there must be other views because I've
seen them yeah but you respect them you
don't do you I respect the people who
have them but I think I think those
views are just flat out wrong
he's talking about some of his fellow
justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg a
liberal who is and this never ceases to
surprise people one of his best friends
both on and off the court I see the
Constitution by striving for a more
perfect union to her the Constitution
evolves and should reflect changes in
society
the going back to what was meant
originally when they wrote for instance
We the People makes little sense who
were we the people in 1787 you would not
be among we the people african-americans
would not be among the people Justice
Ginsburg and you disagree we do need
lots of things and yet you're such good
friends i attack ideas I don't attack
people and some very good people have
some very bad ideas and if you can't
separate the two you got to get another
day job you you don't want to be a judge
at least not a judge on him on a
multi-member panel he's one of the best
writers on the panel known for a bold
and colorful style he told us he has to
work at it it doesn't come easy
you sometimes quote Cole Porter you a
goop I do a West Side Story you you go
to the Greek tragedies but you said you
do it because it
makes the opinion interesting which
might induce somebody to read it but he
can also use his pen as a sword to
attack the writings of his colleagues
for instance he once called a Breyer
decision sheer applesauce he's thrown
some of those zingers your way oh yeah
one of your opinions he called absurd
another he called implausible
speculation another self-righteous on
and on how bad this opinion is not to be
taken seriously and he wrote that about
justice O'Connor no justice O'Connor
right
he's rather mild I think in the
adjectives that he he uses for me but
you can take every one of those words
run his opinions and you'll see that he
all of us are implausible when we
disagree with him but do you ever ever
take it personally no I had to take it
as a challenge how am I going to this in
a way that's a real put-down I'm trying
to figure out if there was ever real
anger I would say exasperation is the
word as annoyed as you might be about
his singing dissent he is so utterly
charming so amusing so sometimes
outrageous but you can't help but saying
I'm glad that he's my friend or he's my
colleague what's interesting is the
difference between how you appear in
person and the image that you have you
see the writings ourselves often
combative and your friends say that
you're charming and fun I could be
charming and combative at the same time
what's what's what's contradictory
between the two I love to argue I've
always loved to argue and I'd love to
point out the weaknesses of the opposing
arguments it may well be that I'm
something of a shin kicker it may well
be that on something of a contrarian of
all the cases that have come before him
on the court bush
gourmet have been the most controversial
it has been reported that he played a
pivotal role in urging the other
justices to end the Florida recount
thereby handing the 2000 election to
George Bush the subject came up at the
Oxford Union surprising yourself as a
Supreme Court justice were granted the
power to appoint the next president of
the United States who had you pick and
why and would would he or she be better
than your last choice you want to talk
about Bush vs. gore right I perceived
that I am my court oh no apology
whatever for Bush vs. gore we did the
right thing so so there people say that
that decision was not based on judicial
philosophy but on politics
I say nonsense was it political gee I
really don't want to get here I missus
get over it it's so old by now the
principal issue in the case whether the
scheme that the Florida Supreme Court
had put together violated the Federal
Constitution that wasn't even close the
vote was 7 to 2 moreover he says it was
not the court that made this a judicial
question it was Al Gore who made it a
judicial question it was he who brought
it into the Florida courts we didn't go
looking for trouble
it was he who said I want this to be
decided by the courts
what are we supposed to say oh not
important enough but it was a bullet it
ended up being a political decision it
ended up in I don't I don't say that you
don't think it handed the election to
George Bush how does that make it a
political decision at the sight of the
election oh I see if that's all you mean
by it yes that's all I mean by it okay I
suppose it did although you should add
to that that it would have come out the
same way no matter what the Justice has
been explaining his positions publicly
more and more and even delving into some
thorny issues like torture
I don't like torture although the
wining it is is is gonna be a nice trick
but I mean who's who's in favor of it
nobody and we have a law against torture
but if the Quai everything that is
hateful and odious is not covered by
some provision of the Constitution if
someone's in custody as in Abu Ghraib
and they are brutalized by a law
enforcement person if you listen to the
expression cruel and unusual punishment
doesn't that apply no an unusual
punishment to the country you think you
think that you would has anybody ever
referred to torture as punishment I
don't well I think if you're in custody
and you have a policeman who's taken you
into custody you say he's punishing you
she's punishing you for you punished he
assumes you you one either committed a
crime or that you know something that he
wants it's the latter and when he's when
he's when he's hurting you in order to
get information from you yeah you don't
say he's punishing you
what's he punishing you for because he
thinks you're a terrorist and he's gonna
beat that you know what that's my view
and it happens to be correct he's
nothing if not certain and confident how
did he get that way where and how the
justice grew up when we come back
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
Justice Scalia Writes Guide for Interpreting the Law
Ted Cruz: Public must decide abortion issue
Porn Director Reveals Secrets Of The Adult Industry | Minutes With | @LADbible
Clarence Thomas: Everything You Didn't Know About His Sh*tty Past
Non Stop || Hamilton Animatic
Top 10 Court Cases that Changed America
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)