Justice Scalia On Life Part 1

Summary

In 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

00:00

👨‍⚖️ 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.

05:00

📜 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.

10:00

🏛️ 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.

Keywords

💡Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. Known as 'Nino' to friends and colleagues, he was renowned for his brilliant legal mind and combative nature. In the script, he discusses his judicial philosophy and his role in significant cases, making him a central figure in the video's narrative.

💡Originalism

Originalism is a legal philosophy that advocates interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time it was ratified. Justice Scalia was a prominent advocate for originalism, as highlighted in the script where he argues for interpreting the Constitution as it was understood by those who drafted and ratified it, rather than adapting it to modern societal values.

💡Living Constitution

The concept of a 'living Constitution' suggests that the document should evolve and adapt to changing societal values and norms. This is in contrast to Scalia's originalist view. The script mentions Scalia's critique of this approach, arguing that it allows judges to create rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as the right to abortion.

💡Activist Judges

Activist judges are those who are perceived to create new rights or laws from the bench, rather than interpreting the existing law. Scalia criticizes such judges in the script, advocating for a more restrained judicial role that adheres to the original text of the Constitution.

💡Bush v. Gore

Bush v. Gore was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court that played a pivotal role in the 2000 US Presidential election. The script discusses Scalia's involvement in the case, where he is reported to have urged the court to end the Florida recount, which effectively decided the election in favor of George Bush.

💡Judicial Philosophy

Judicial philosophy refers to a judge's approach to interpreting and applying the law. In the script, Scalia's judicial philosophy is a central theme, with a focus on his commitment to originalism and his opposition to what he views as judicial activism.

💡Constitutional Rights

Constitutional rights are those rights protected by a nation's constitution. The script discusses Scalia's view on the creation of rights, arguing that they should be established democratically through legislation rather than judicial interpretation, as he believes the Constitution should impede, not facilitate, change.

💡Supreme Court Justice

A Supreme Court Justice is a member of the highest court in the United States, responsible for interpreting the Constitution and federal laws. The script features interviews and discussions with Scalia in his capacity as a Justice, emphasizing his role and influence within the court.

💡Oxford Union

The Oxford Union is a world-renowned debating society at the University of Oxford. In the script, Scalia's appearance at the Oxford Union is mentioned, where he engages in discussions about his judicial philosophy and answers questions about his views on various legal issues.

💡Torture

The script touches on Scalia's views on torture, particularly in the context of interrogations and the treatment of detainees. He discusses the legal definition of 'cruel and unusual punishment' and its applicability to acts of torture, reflecting on the limits of what is constitutionally permissible.

💡Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade is a landmark Supreme Court case that established a woman's legal right to have an abortion. Critics of Scalia suggest that his originalist philosophy aims to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade. The script implies that Scalia's judicial approach could potentially challenge such precedents.

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