I just watched both parts of this interview. I find it a little funny that Piers Morgan did not dare to bring up gun control with Justice Scalia. Whats the matter Piers? Don't want people hearing the truth straight from the top?
I’ll be completely up front: I’m a flaming Liberal. I (as a lawyer) disagreed with so many of Scalia’s decisions. That said, while in law school I had the chance encounter to chat with Justice Scalia for almost two hours while I smoked a pipe and he chain smoked cigarettes between lectures in an out of the way corner of campus. He was such a wonderfully engaging, uproariously funny, and affable man. He leaned against a railing (with a US Marshal standing only feet away with dark sunglasses and an earpiece) talking to a second year law student like I was someone important and worth talking to. I genuinely respected him as a result of that fact alone. He was a true intellectual giant. Even though I so often disagreed with him, I have NOTHING but the utmost respect for him as a “real” person and as a masterful jurist. Though we disagreed, Justice Scalia was a truly unique person in that he was unquestionably “significant” on a national scale, yet comported himself as if he were no different than anyone else. He understood “humanity”. God Bless Antonin Scalia. He was a good human being. I will always think fondly of my chat with “Nino” (he told me his nickname). Despite our differences, I have supreme respect for him. RIP.
Man that's such an awesome opportunity. I'd have paid a fortune for 15 minutes with the guy. I admire you for being able to respect him & his positions even if you disagree.
Hi Matt, even though we would likely differ on our legal interpretive philosophies , I take my hat off to you for seeing through your disagreements with The Justices' opinions, and understanding him. If only everyone would be as mature and thoughtful as you Matt, society would be much better. I don't know you, but I respect you greatly for what you have written. I know the Justice spent alot of his time helping people understand his textualist and originalist jurisprudence. I think maybe you may not be aware that he took even more care to spend time with you precisely because he may have senses you don't agree with him, which would have given him even more reason to win yo over by showing that he never made decisions because of what we wanted other than to be true to the text, to ensure that he left the freedom to the people and the democratic process to govern, and not him unless it is clear in the text of the statute or the constitution that the 'people' ratified. He believed we progress democratically, and not by robed unelected jurists. This quote from Thomas Sowell reminds me of The Justice "the most important question is not what's best or what's right, but who decides', and Justice Scalia lived that philosophy, he was not King, the Law is.
Morgan's questions, for the most part, come down to his failure to understand originalism. He expects people's feelings to govern the interpretation of the constitution. Even as an Australian who doesn't really care, this is painful to watch.
My favorite quote from Scalia “I always love listening to people tell you their version of what to think about how to do your job without reading 1 percent of text I have in order to figure out my opinion
Piers Morgan has about 1/100th of the wisdom, humor, gravitas, and good sense that Scalia had. It was kinda embarrassing watching him stumble around trying to trip Scalia up with his silly questions.
Couldn't help notice that "Take em guns away Piers" sure stayed the hell away from that question because Judge Scalia would have schooled him on that one and Piers CERTAINLY couldn't let that happen on his show.
Justice Scalia speaks from a foundation of principle and through a funnel of impeccable logic; it's like listening to a solo concerto. Unfortunately, our time has become so mired in perspective and emotion that he might as well speak only Latin while doing interviews like this one -- so foreign is his approach from the approach of those commonly conducting such interviews.
Wow finally we have a judge who is middle of the road like all judges should be. Regardless of reliegion, or beliefs a judge has to make a neutral decision, and judge Scalia is that kind of man. We need more judges like him.
I honestly don't care what side of the political spectrum Justice Scalia is on ,but he is an incredibly charismatic and intelligent person. He is not vehemently opposed to anything and explains his opinions in a very understandable way.
one of the funniest lines I've ever heard on why Jusice S 's marriage has lasted so long. J: Well, early on my wife told me that if I left, I'd have to take the children. LOL!
I would have loved to hear his answer on this! Does your individual right matter more than the safety of the majority of folks when it comes to guns? Piers Morgan really put him on the spot and asked him some very difficult questions. Justice Scalia was truly a very intelligent individual. Didn't realize the Federalist papers were the bible when it came to deciding what must be analyzed to render a just and fair decision.
His job would not have to decide whether slavery was legal or not but whether it was in the constitution. He generally just lets the states decide. Because after all they are states not provinces.
Funny!! I think this is the first time I've seen Piers Morgan not try to bring up the 2nd amendment and how out dated HE thinks it is... Probably because he knew he would get the answer he's been searching for and wouldn't like it!
Piers, why are you so against the Framers? You didn't make it obvious in this interview, but you've made it obvious in the past? Scalia is one awesome and extremely intelligent individual.
Okay forget everything else. What the issue is, from what I can tell, is that you think that Scalia is "principled" or has some form of "judicial restraint". Every judge will tell you they have restraint, but you have to look at their voting record, not the bullshit that comes out of their mouth, because these people are incredibly intelligent, especially Scalia, and can easily fool you into thinking they are "principled" in any way except for partisan politics.
I think what hasn't come out of the interview is that he, just like originalists generally, think that the constitution or the law has to be changed in order to have a new meaning, for example in the case of death penalty, rather than re-interpreting what 'cruel and unusual punishment' means and convincing judges to engage in judicial activism, an anti-death penalty people should instead try convince fellow citizens and hold a constitutional convention and pass an amendment.
How is his rhetoric empty? Let me reuse your words: All these people who think Scalia isn't principled either: A. disagree with his political views, or B. are fooled by critics' extremely eloquent, though ultimately empty rhetoric.
george w. bush, not al gore, brought the case to the supreme court in 2000. Scalia could have voted to not hear the case, actually, the entire supreme court could have decided to not hear the case. 4 of the justices did decide to hear it.
Al Gore brought the case to the Florida Supreme Court, and The US Supreme Court agreed to hear it. As Scalia say's it was just a matter of Jurisdiction, if it was the election of the Florida Governorship then sure Florida should decide it. But it was the US election, so which court should decide the matter if it is brought into the courts? Florida or US? ...US election so US Supreme Court. Easy!
how did Morgan even get close to being seen seriously a journalist? I suppose the guy who did the Capone vault thing would have been about the same. you know who I am referring to.
As is usual, Morgan brings a butter knife to a gun fight. I'm sure he felt he was on the same intellectual level as Scalia and would challenge him intellectually. Morgan is delusional. He is better suited to challenge Pee-Wee Herman in a discussion but most likely would be embarrassed then also.
Surely the decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible. They are "states" that is all he is saying. If people want the federal government to decide everything which it is increasingly doing, then let that be. But then don't act like the states have any power. They don't even have basic attributes like controlling their borders.
Piers did u think this was one of ur regular @ the office interviews??? You weren't even qualified to be in the same room..it should be clear to everyone y he's nolonger with us. R.i.p Sir Scalia
Please remember...(a) If something is cruel (to be able to take your life away) & (b) If something is unusual ( a life-taking poison, a toxic (MOD) drug, an electric current of very high voltage)...then...to agree that this is not [Punishment] is a [Lack of Intellect] (that deals with final causes & their effects). All for Common Sense & Intelligence. i.e. (The Death Penalty is Cruel & Unusual Punishment)! It's a [Form of Torture]!
okay, this is not complicated. we know that things can change, but guess what, the founders made it possible to amed the constitution. you dont have judges who change its meaning to implement social policies. thats judges becoming legislators. if you dont amend the constitution, then let states decide things that the constitution doesnt cover. its called federalism! does piers Morgan really have a hard time understanding this?
An "idiot" implies ignorance, but I believe Piers to be more intelligent than his tactics lead one to believe. He is, in fact, a revisionist with regard to history, but such an approach only sways when the person interviewed has a weaker grasp of history than the interviewer. Such was not the case in this interview;)
Morgan and Charlie Rose would always much rather hear their own voices than responses from the people they interview. They're both terrible at what they do.
I know exactly what a judge is and their job. Same as I know that presidents are not supposed to write bills, that is the "job" of Congress. Yet it happens all the time, the executive drafts legislation all the time. Same principle with judges like Scalia, they use the law to further their beliefs and impose their will on people, even though that is not their "official" job. You can't see the difference between ideology and practice.
martthesling Who does? Unless you're a wealthy white male, why would you want to live by the precepts set down by a group of wealthy white men? It would seem that they would be biased from their onset, and they were. These bill of rights were never intended to include anyone else. Women couldn't even vote when they were written! Blacks were considered property! The notion of treating gay people as a class of citizens worthy of ANY rights was laughable!!! There's a reason why most justices (including Scalia) abide by the notion of stare decisis. There's a reason why the Constitution has been amended. And there is NO REASON in going back to step one & retreading a path that has brought us to a place, today, with not perfect civil rights, but civil rights that are more focused, more inclusive, more conscientious than just about any other time in our history. Looking at the Constitution without placing it in the context of what has followed it is like judging a classic piece of literature based on nothing but the first sentence. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." Thank You Mr. Dickens! I think I've got the gist of it!
HoRu Re: "Women couldn't even vote when they were written! Blacks were considered property! " What a bad faith argument against originalism. Originalism acknowledges the amendments that were passed via Article V. Slavery was banned by Amendment 13 for example. An orginalist is more likely to enforce the 13th Amendment than someone who believes in a "living Constitution" who may decide the 13th Amendment is out dated in 100 years.
Mark Stuber Let’s remember, when dealing with the Constitution & its Amendments, we are speaking of, essentially, a very brief document. It is not a comprehensive compendium of our rights and an Originalist interpretation is just as liable to give one a different answer each morning its read anew. You: “An orginalist is more likely to enforce the 13th Amendment than someone who believes in a "living Constitution" who may decide the 13th Amendment is out dated in 100 years.” Really? Because it was, in part, from an Originalist perspective that Justice Brown, who wrote Plessy vs Fergusson came to his momentously disastrous opinion. For example, contrary to its epithet of the Separate But Equal opinion, a basis for the majority opinion in Plessy vs Fergusson was that of state’s rights, frequently a popular argument from the Originalists on the modern Court. “Laws permitting, and even requiring their (blacks & whites, of course) separation... has been generally... recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures.” Justice Henry Billings Brown, Plessy vs Ferguson. So a simple states rights argument is all that’s needed to lay waste to the efforts of millions of people. Orginalism does NOT guarantee a good opinion (as Justice Scalia, himself, has admitted), and it does not guarantee a consistent opinion. To reiterate: “There's a reason why most justices (including Scalia) abide by the notion of stare decisis. There's a reason why the Constitution has been amended."
HoRu The Plessy Vs Fergusson decision had nothing to do with the 13th Amendment! And no, "Separate but equal" doesn't sound orginalist at all. It sounds like the name of a doctrine a judge made up to get his way. I'm not sure, if one could apply oringalist methodology to that case anyway. I'm not sure “equel protection of the laws” was a comon phrase in the 1860s/70s or not. As Scalia pointed out. Originalism can't always be used but when we know how a phrase was comonly used at the time and how everyone who ratified the verbiage interpretedd, that's what we should go by. I'not not sure If you even listened to Scalia. Re: “ was that of state’s rights, frequently a popular argument from the Originalists on the modern Court” Nope, Originalism is not about state rights. Nice straw man. It is about states rights only when the Costitution designates states as the arbirture of the subject at hand. By the way, saying a decsision has disaterous consequences has no bearing on whether a law is or is not Constitutional. Not to any kind of textualist including Originalists. If part of the Consititution is bad, propose a Constitutional Amendment to fix it. Don't have 9 judges pretend the Constitution says something it does not say.
The abortion battle was lost long ago and is so trivial I don't think about it at all. A judge isn't supposed to have an opinion on EVERY single social issue. Also Scalia said the court is a political institution due to the factor that political parties pick their candidates solely on that criteria.
Information about the court shared outside of the court shouldn't be trusted? Tell that to Potter Stewart's ghost. He was the primary source for Woodward & Armstrong's book, "The Brethren."
Yeah you are right, a principle of the constitution being "sacred text". Just like the bible, slavery is okay and it's okay to kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath. That is how far "originalism" will get you.
I feel like this interview confirmed the decision that Justice Scalia had to go. He was too firm a supporter of the original intent of the constitution. Piers Morgan asked how Scalia's Catholic's beliefs didn't bleed into his legal philosophy, for example on Roe v. Wade. Scalia showed that he was able to separate the two and uphold proper constitutional interpretation. I totally appreciated his answers to Morgan on that issue and other legal issues. I think however that Piers was deliberately putting the squeeze on him by asking him personal questions that most inside players probably already know. Did Piers really ask what is your favorite pasta dish? Smh!
I consider myself quite conservative. This judge is making my skin crawl. I disagree with just about everything he says. He seems like a real asshole to me. He's all ego. That's a very dangerous thing. He says torture is not punishment but burning a flag is speech; he says the Constitution does not address abortion in any way; he says a Judge shouldn't recuse him or herself if they are friends with the head of an agency at the trial - as long as the head isn't personally being sued or having his or her personal fortune at risk. He says that the court isn't political at all - NOT EVEN A LITTLE ITTY BITTY BIT??? And he says that with stone conviction - without any sense of reasoned perspective.
I clearly think that the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her own body must not be left to the democratic process. It is a human right. The same way, the right to defend oneself is a right, not to be left to the politicians to infringe on.
Fathers are being completely left out of this equation and if that is the case, the court needs to rule women have the sole responsibility for the children, especially financially, and men have no further obligation at any time.
Are you suggesting that the father should have the right to override a woman's decision about her own body? A father may decide no to have a child with a woman. After he decides to go ahead and do the hanky panky, he will have the opportunity to help his woman bring the child into the world, and when she does, he has equal responsibility with the mother. Simple, no?
All human rights are created by democratic process. Unless you believe judges should take into consideration natural rights, which would be unworkable and lead to arbitrariness. It can be your opinion that the rule from Roe v. Wade should be codified as a constitutional amendment, and I might even agree with you, but if you want judges to just create this right out of thin air you are against democracy.
Christian Schumacher All human rights are in fact natural and come from your creator or humanity. (We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.... That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed) Governments, laws and constitutions give no rights, the rights mentioned in the constitution were rights that existed due to your state of nature (basic Lockeian philosophy) the codifying of these rights predates the constitution as well, manga carta was the first example of it being codified. This is why the amendments that mention rights always use the phrasing of 'the' right, acknowledging that the right is preexisting and not a result of the constitution. Most western common law is derived from natural law and natural rights. Justice Clarence Thomas cites much common law in his opinions. The 9th ammendment is an acknowledgement that the constitution couldn't possibly mention all rights and therefore 'the enumeration of in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people' There is much precedent in historical and current jurisprudence regarding natural law.
John Galt What is your point? Laws can acknowlegdge natural law, but that doesn't go against anything I said. Common law isn't natural law either, as you know. When Justices cite common law they use it to explain what is meant with what is said in the constitution, since the constitution sometimes refers to apparently pre-existing rights which need to be explained. Since English common law was the legal source before the constitution, obviously that's where they'd look. Justices don't argue on the basis of natural law in and of itself, because that's not a legal source. If it were, justices could make up their own natural rights. What is self-evident to you might not be self-evident to me.
Get over it............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... r u srious
All these people who think Scalia is "principled" either: A. agree with his political views or B. are fooled by his extremely eloquent, though ultimately empty rhetoric. You have to beware of people who are super articulate, (like Obama for instance), they are able to be very convincing, and able to justify anything and persuade anyone. Actions, Actions, Actions, not words.
Yes. I'm sure Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen, Kennedy who are ideologically different and have no brains according to You, would be surprised to hear your evaluation of them as too stupid in their assessment of Justice Scalia. I have watched many interviews with them and they definitely thought he was principled and Not empty in his rhetoric. You are wrong.
Scalia makes Piers look a complete moron. Rest in peace Justice Scalia, you have done your life's work and you did it well.
Relax, he was old and died. People do that, ya know. He was just a very smart, influential individual that was old and died.
Griffin Dean Shut up u fool He died before his time He was murdered!!! But what an intelligent individual!!
Kingsley Pearce: Morgan is a dullard.
Bruce Wayne, He sure isn't lolz
Some of Morgan's questions are painful to listen to. They are just so stupid. He's like a high school newspaper reporter.
Whats your favorite color?
Whats your dogs name?
Why are you?
Agreed
Every single time Scalia is about to say something profound and interesting piers interrupts him
Because Scalia usually says something profound when he speaks.
I just watched both parts of this interview. I find it a little funny that Piers Morgan did not dare to bring up gun control with Justice Scalia. Whats the matter Piers? Don't want people hearing the truth straight from the top?
"There is no correlation between the difficulty of a choice and its importance."
I feel sorry for Professor Garner. He was just sitting there as a potted plant.
Nobody gives a fuck about him. He did exactly what he was supposed to do
I’ll be completely up front: I’m a flaming Liberal. I (as a lawyer) disagreed with so many of Scalia’s decisions.
That said, while in law school I had the chance encounter to chat with Justice Scalia for almost two hours while I smoked a pipe and he chain smoked cigarettes between lectures in an out of the way corner of campus.
He was such a wonderfully engaging, uproariously funny, and affable man. He leaned against a railing (with a US Marshal standing only feet away with dark sunglasses and an earpiece) talking to a second year law student like I was someone important and worth talking to. I genuinely respected him as a result of that fact alone.
He was a true intellectual giant. Even though I so often disagreed with him, I have NOTHING but the utmost respect for him as a “real” person and as a masterful jurist.
Though we disagreed, Justice Scalia was a truly unique person in that he was unquestionably “significant” on a national scale, yet comported himself as if he were no different than anyone else. He understood “humanity”.
God Bless Antonin Scalia. He was a good human being. I will always think fondly of my chat with “Nino” (he told me his nickname). Despite our differences, I have supreme respect for him. RIP.
Man that's such an awesome opportunity. I'd have paid a fortune for 15 minutes with the guy. I admire you for being able to respect him & his positions even if you disagree.
Hi Matt, even though we would likely differ on our legal interpretive philosophies , I take my hat off to you for seeing through your disagreements with The Justices' opinions, and understanding him. If only everyone would be as mature and thoughtful as you Matt, society would be much better. I don't know you, but I respect you greatly for what you have written. I know the Justice spent alot of his time helping people understand his textualist and originalist jurisprudence. I think maybe you may not be aware that he took even more care to spend time with you precisely because he may have senses you don't agree with him, which would have given him even more reason to win yo over by showing that he never made decisions because of what we wanted other than to be true to the text, to ensure that he left the freedom to the people and the democratic process to govern, and not him unless it is clear in the text of the statute or the constitution that the 'people' ratified. He believed we progress democratically, and not by robed unelected jurists. This quote from Thomas Sowell reminds me of The Justice "the most important question is not what's best or what's right, but who decides', and Justice Scalia lived that philosophy, he was not King, the Law is.
Morgan's questions, for the most part, come down to his failure to understand originalism. He expects people's feelings to govern the interpretation of the constitution. Even as an Australian who doesn't really care, this is painful to watch.
Piers is so obstinate. Scalia is being as direct and simple as he can be. Some people can not divorce their feelings from their duty.
charm, humour, hardwork, intellect, all the things that make me love the law are attributes of the great man scalia
My favorite quote from Scalia “I always love listening to people tell you their version of what to think about how to do your job without reading 1 percent of text I have in order to figure out my opinion
"It will be a lot less colorful without you." Piers actually said something worth repeating.
It's sad when he says he plans on retiring :( RIP
An amazing person and justice. The royal court jester was ill equipped to handle such a icon.
Piers Morgan has about 1/100th of the wisdom, humor, gravitas, and good sense that Scalia had. It was kinda embarrassing watching him stumble around trying to trip Scalia up with his silly questions.
Couldn't help notice that "Take em guns away Piers" sure stayed the hell away from that question because Judge Scalia would have schooled him on that one and Piers CERTAINLY couldn't let that happen on his show.
Justice Scalia speaks from a foundation of principle and through a funnel of impeccable logic; it's like listening to a solo concerto.
Unfortunately, our time has become so mired in perspective and emotion that he might as well speak only Latin while doing interviews like this one -- so foreign is his approach from the approach of those commonly conducting such interviews.
Damn Scalia is really charismatic
Wow finally we have a judge who is middle of the road like all judges should be. Regardless of reliegion, or beliefs a judge has to make a neutral decision, and judge Scalia is that kind of man. We need more judges like him.
I honestly don't care what side of the political spectrum Justice Scalia is on ,but he is an incredibly charismatic and intelligent person. He is not vehemently opposed to anything and explains his opinions in a very understandable way.
one of the funniest lines I've ever heard on why Jusice S 's marriage has lasted so long.
J: Well, early on my wife told me that if I left, I'd have to take the children.
LOL!
The Federalist Papers........BINGO!!! Excellent reading. (also, the Anti-federalist Papers, both sides of the coin)....
What a brilliant, brilliant man. May he RIP
What a brilliant man!
RIP Justice Scalia. 😞
Scalia gave up on the interview long before it was finished. Oh well.
Almost every question Piers Morgan asks he first LOADS the question to make Scalia seem like a bad person.
Piers Morgan as an interviewer is like Sasha Cohen as an interviewer. A legitimate interviewer would be William Buckley or Geoff Metcalf.
What a great man.
What a guy
7:48 "I want to get into you..."
Ohhkay is he going to amend that?
"... as a man."
lol!
Hi Job. Good interview.
One of the many moments in Piers' career where he realizes he is a complete fraud.
i miss this man.
I would have loved to hear his answer on this! Does your individual right matter more than the safety of the majority of folks when it comes to guns? Piers Morgan really put him on the spot and asked him some very difficult questions. Justice Scalia was truly a very intelligent individual. Didn't realize the Federalist papers were the bible when it came to deciding what must be analyzed to render a just and fair decision.
I’m a Dem but I would agree on mostly all his decisions he voted on.
love scalia
I must say Justice Scalia has a very wise woman by his side. I have so much respect for Justice Scalia.
right at the start, Scalia catches Morgan making him out to be what he is not! poor Morgan..
Great man
2:07 lol. He made Piers look so stupid.
Is there a version with No Piers in it
His job would not have to decide whether slavery was legal or not but whether it was in the constitution. He generally just lets the states decide. Because after all they are states not provinces.
Funny!! I think this is the first time I've seen Piers Morgan not try to bring up the 2nd amendment and how out dated HE thinks it is... Probably because he knew he would get the answer he's been searching for and wouldn't like it!
Piers was like a schoolboy here.
Piers, why are you so against the Framers? You didn't make it obvious in this interview, but you've made it obvious in the past? Scalia is one awesome and extremely intelligent individual.
What a brilliant man.
Walking the streets of Gold in Heaven..Is better than being on Earth any day...Bless the persecuted Saints O'Lord Jesus
2000 BC in Athens???
Socrates Plato Aristotle Pythagoras Archimedes Sophicles and Hippocrates. Are you serious?
Okay forget everything else. What the issue is, from what I can tell, is that you think that Scalia is "principled" or has some form of "judicial restraint". Every judge will tell you they have restraint, but you have to look at their voting record, not the bullshit that comes out of their mouth, because these people are incredibly intelligent, especially Scalia, and can easily fool you into thinking they are "principled" in any way except for partisan politics.
So a rapist doesn't a right to face his accuser? That is a pretty weird interpretation.
I think what hasn't come out of the interview is that he, just like originalists generally, think that the constitution or the law has to be changed in order to have a new meaning, for example in the case of death penalty, rather than re-interpreting what 'cruel and unusual punishment' means and convincing judges to engage in judicial activism, an anti-death penalty people should instead try convince fellow citizens and hold a constitutional convention and pass an amendment.
He's not a facist. I think he did this interview quite well, and they seemed to have fun with it.
How is his rhetoric empty?
Let me reuse your words: All these people who think Scalia isn't principled either: A. disagree with his political views, or B. are fooled by critics' extremely eloquent, though ultimately empty rhetoric.
Morgan did lose some of his inane liberalism after these interviews with Scalia.
Scalia was mega based
Piers Morgan is a horrible interviewer. Scalia schools him .. Morgan actually thinks he is smarter.
george w. bush, not al gore, brought the case to the supreme court in 2000. Scalia could have voted to not hear the case, actually, the entire supreme court could have decided to not hear the case. 4 of the justices did decide to hear it.
Al Gore brought the case to the Florida Supreme Court, and The US Supreme Court agreed to hear it. As Scalia say's it was just a matter of Jurisdiction, if it was the election of the Florida Governorship then sure Florida should decide it. But it was the US election, so which court should decide the matter if it is brought into the courts? Florida or US? ...US election so US Supreme Court. Easy!
how did Morgan even get close to being seen seriously a journalist?
I suppose the guy who did the Capone vault thing would have been about the same. you know who I am referring to.
I never realized how bad of an interviewer Piers is.
As is usual, Morgan brings a butter knife to a gun fight. I'm sure he felt he was on the same intellectual level as Scalia and would challenge him intellectually. Morgan is delusional. He is better suited to challenge Pee-Wee Herman in a discussion but most likely would be embarrassed then also.
my goodness piers is a terrible interviewer
miss scalia so much, a true american
I don't think you know what a judge is, their job isn't to have an opinion on every single social issue. It is to interpret law.
because he's a liberal
Surely the decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible. They are "states" that is all he is saying. If people want the federal government to decide everything which it is increasingly doing, then let that be. But then don't act like the states have any power. They don't even have basic attributes like controlling their borders.
Piers did u think this was one of ur regular @ the office interviews??? You weren't even qualified to be in the same room..it should be clear to everyone y he's nolonger with us. R.i.p Sir Scalia
Please remember...(a) If something is cruel (to be able to take your life away) & (b) If something is unusual ( a life-taking poison, a toxic (MOD) drug, an electric current of very high voltage)...then...to agree that this is not [Punishment] is a [Lack of Intellect] (that deals with final causes & their effects). All for Common Sense & Intelligence. i.e. (The Death Penalty is Cruel & Unusual Punishment)! It's a [Form of Torture]!
okay, this is not complicated. we know that things can change, but guess what, the founders made it possible to amed the constitution. you dont have judges who change its meaning to implement social policies. thats judges becoming legislators. if you dont amend the constitution, then let states decide things that the constitution doesnt cover. its called federalism! does piers Morgan really have a hard time understanding this?
Pre Sandy Hook? I ask because morgan did not ask about the 2nd Amendment.
An "idiot" implies ignorance, but I believe Piers to be more intelligent than his tactics lead one to believe. He is, in fact, a revisionist with regard to history, but such an approach only sways when the person interviewed has a weaker grasp of history than the interviewer. Such was not the case in this interview;)
Morgan and Charlie Rose would always much rather hear their own voices than responses from the people they interview. They're both terrible at what they do.
I know exactly what a judge is and their job. Same as I know that presidents are not supposed to write bills, that is the "job" of Congress. Yet it happens all the time, the executive drafts legislation all the time. Same principle with judges like Scalia, they use the law to further their beliefs and impose their will on people, even though that is not their "official" job. You can't see the difference between ideology and practice.
I don't like Originalism but Justice Scalia is brilliant and so funny.
You don't like The Constitution being read the way it was originally intended?
martthesling Who does? Unless you're a wealthy white male, why would you want to live by the precepts set down by a group of wealthy white men? It would seem that they would be biased from their onset, and they were. These bill of rights were never intended to include anyone else. Women couldn't even vote when they were written! Blacks were considered property! The notion of treating gay people as a class of citizens worthy of ANY rights was laughable!!! There's a reason why most justices (including Scalia) abide by the notion of stare decisis. There's a reason why the Constitution has been amended. And there is NO REASON in going back to step one & retreading a path that has brought us to a place, today, with not perfect civil rights, but civil rights that are more focused, more inclusive, more conscientious than just about any other time in our history. Looking at the Constitution without placing it in the context of what has followed it is like judging a classic piece of literature based on nothing but the first sentence. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." Thank You Mr. Dickens! I think I've got the gist of it!
HoRu Re: "Women couldn't even vote when they were written! Blacks were considered property! " What a bad faith argument against originalism. Originalism acknowledges the amendments that were passed via Article V. Slavery was banned by Amendment 13 for example. An orginalist is more likely to enforce the 13th Amendment than someone who believes in a "living Constitution" who may decide the 13th Amendment is out dated in 100 years.
Mark Stuber Let’s remember, when dealing with the Constitution & its Amendments, we are speaking of, essentially, a very brief document. It is not a comprehensive compendium of our rights and an Originalist interpretation is just as liable to give one a different answer each morning its read anew.
You: “An orginalist is more likely to enforce the 13th Amendment than someone who believes in a "living Constitution" who may decide the 13th Amendment is out dated in 100 years.”
Really? Because it was, in part, from an Originalist perspective that Justice Brown, who wrote Plessy vs Fergusson came to his momentously disastrous opinion.
For example, contrary to its epithet of the Separate But Equal opinion, a basis for the majority opinion in Plessy vs Fergusson was that of state’s rights, frequently a popular argument from the Originalists on the modern Court.
“Laws permitting, and even requiring their (blacks & whites, of course) separation... has been generally... recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures.” Justice Henry Billings Brown, Plessy vs Ferguson. So a simple states rights argument is all that’s needed to lay waste to the efforts of millions of people. Orginalism does NOT guarantee a good opinion (as Justice Scalia, himself, has admitted), and it does not guarantee a consistent opinion.
To reiterate: “There's a reason why most justices (including Scalia) abide by the notion of stare decisis. There's a reason why the Constitution has been amended."
HoRu The Plessy Vs Fergusson decision had nothing to do with the 13th Amendment! And no, "Separate but equal" doesn't sound orginalist at all. It sounds like the name of a doctrine a judge made up to get his way. I'm not sure, if one could apply oringalist methodology to that case anyway. I'm not sure “equel protection of the laws” was a comon phrase in the 1860s/70s or not. As Scalia pointed out. Originalism can't always be used but when we know how a phrase was comonly used at the time and how everyone who ratified the verbiage interpretedd, that's what we should go by. I'not not sure If you even listened to Scalia.
Re: “ was that of state’s rights, frequently a popular argument from the Originalists on the modern Court”
Nope, Originalism is not about state rights. Nice straw man. It is about states rights only when the Costitution designates states as the arbirture of the subject at hand.
By the way, saying a decsision has disaterous consequences has no bearing on whether a law is or is not Constitutional. Not to any kind of textualist including Originalists. If part of the Consititution is bad, propose a Constitutional Amendment to fix it. Don't have 9 judges pretend the Constitution says something it does not say.
The abortion battle was lost long ago and is so trivial I don't think about it at all. A judge isn't supposed to have an opinion on EVERY single social issue. Also Scalia said the court is a political institution due to the factor that political parties pick their candidates solely on that criteria.
Do you realize that you are twisting Scalia's words?
Information about the court shared outside of the court shouldn't be trusted? Tell that to Potter Stewart's ghost. He was the primary source for Woodward & Armstrong's book, "The Brethren."
just show how much of a sensationalist amateur that Piers Morgan is....
Yeah you are right, a principle of the constitution being "sacred text". Just like the bible, slavery is okay and it's okay to kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath. That is how far "originalism" will get you.
I feel like this interview confirmed the decision that Justice Scalia had to go. He was too firm a supporter of the original intent of the constitution. Piers Morgan asked how Scalia's Catholic's beliefs didn't bleed into his legal philosophy, for example on Roe v. Wade. Scalia showed that he was able to separate the two and uphold proper constitutional interpretation. I totally appreciated his answers to Morgan on that issue and other legal issues. I think however that Piers was deliberately putting the squeeze on him by asking him personal questions that most inside players probably already know. Did Piers really ask what is your favorite pasta dish? Smh!
Original meaning, not intent.
I consider myself quite conservative. This judge is making my skin crawl. I disagree with just about everything he says.
He seems like a real asshole to me. He's all ego. That's a very dangerous thing.
He says torture is not punishment but burning a flag is speech; he says the Constitution does not address abortion in any way; he says a Judge shouldn't recuse him or herself if they are friends with the head of an agency at the trial - as long as the head isn't personally being sued or having his or her personal fortune at risk.
He says that the court isn't political at all - NOT EVEN A LITTLE ITTY BITTY BIT???
And he says that with stone conviction - without any sense of reasoned perspective.
Maybe read his book. It's tough to get in depth on every thing you just listed in a half hour.
I clearly think that the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her own body must not be left to the democratic process. It is a human right. The same way, the right to defend oneself is a right, not to be left to the politicians to infringe on.
Fathers are being completely left out of this equation and if that is the case, the court needs to rule women have the sole responsibility for the children, especially financially, and men have no further obligation at any time.
Are you suggesting that the father should have the right to override a woman's decision about her own body? A father may decide no to have a child with a woman. After he decides to go ahead and do the hanky panky, he will have the opportunity to help his woman bring the child into the world, and when she does, he has equal responsibility with the mother. Simple, no?
All human rights are created by democratic process. Unless you believe judges should take into consideration natural rights, which would be unworkable and lead to arbitrariness. It can be your opinion that the rule from Roe v. Wade should be codified as a constitutional amendment, and I might even agree with you, but if you want judges to just create this right out of thin air you are against democracy.
Christian Schumacher All human rights are in fact natural and come from your creator or humanity. (We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.... That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed) Governments, laws and constitutions give no rights, the rights mentioned in the constitution were rights that existed due to your state of nature (basic Lockeian philosophy) the codifying of these rights predates the constitution as well, manga carta was the first example of it being codified. This is why the amendments that mention rights always use the phrasing of 'the' right, acknowledging that the right is preexisting and not a result of the constitution. Most western common law is derived from natural law and natural rights. Justice Clarence Thomas cites much common law in his opinions.
The 9th ammendment is an acknowledgement that the constitution couldn't possibly mention all rights and therefore 'the enumeration of in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'
There is much precedent in historical and current jurisprudence regarding natural law.
John Galt
What is your point? Laws can acknowlegdge natural law, but that doesn't go against anything I said. Common law isn't natural law either, as you know. When Justices cite common law they use it to explain what is meant with what is said in the constitution, since the constitution sometimes refers to apparently pre-existing rights which need to be explained. Since English common law was the legal source before the constitution, obviously that's where they'd look. Justices don't argue on the basis of natural law in and of itself, because that's not a legal source. If it were, justices could make up their own natural rights. What is self-evident to you might not be self-evident to me.
Get over it............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... r u srious
Why wouldn't he be serious?
All these people who think Scalia is "principled" either: A. agree with his political views or B. are fooled by his extremely eloquent, though ultimately empty rhetoric. You have to beware of people who are super articulate, (like Obama for instance), they are able to be very convincing, and able to justify anything and persuade anyone. Actions, Actions, Actions, not words.
What actions? Whats the problem?
Wow, You are so wrong about Scalia
Yes. I'm sure Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen, Kennedy who are ideologically different and have no brains according to You, would be surprised to hear your evaluation of them as too stupid in their assessment of Justice Scalia. I have watched many interviews with them and they definitely thought he was principled and Not empty in his rhetoric. You are wrong.
Very scary that this guy was in such a powerful position. This is why presidents matter.
+Live Oak Antonin Scalia was a million times smart than obama.
+huskerfaninNJ Obviously ..
Live Oak lmao 🤣 this judge is the most originalist judge there is and now Trump gets to put a second judge on the Supreme Court lol 😝 to bad
What were you scared of?
Piers morgan is a loon
Scalia should go to jail. Can't stand him.
+Martin Pescador What exactly is your beef with him? Just wondering.
+Gianni Jaffa Liberals thinks Supreme courts make laws. =))
his beef is with the constitution, if you don't like it move in with mr. Morgan
+Martin Pescador Looks like you don't understand how much of anything works.
+Xegaran Rixin like is if you would know? shit for brains!