I am 20 years old. I have never had to fortune of looking up to a man on earth as a role model, until a couple days ago when I discovered Justice Scalia. His integrity and love of blind justice is so honorable.
+mike spence Are you suggesting that a child can not confront a parent with a reasonable and pervasive argument given the context of the circumstances? You are saying that someone of Scalia's resume can not be inexact or disillusioned with his subjective interpretation of laws and the constitution? That's called arrogance and it was the eventual trait that consumed this man and gave him peace of mind in his final moment of existence.
+Trent Timoy Most great philosophers, writers, and lawyers would argue that you have ineffective communication skills. When developing an argument, you should be more direct and avoid using extravagant words. Regardless of your feelings towards the man, it is undeniable that Scalia had an adept understanding of law and the constitution. He simply explains originalism, and that his personal beliefs should not effect how he interoperates the constitution as it was originated.
+Ed Molloy Reasonable and pervasive are extravagant words? Have you tried rehab to give up your crack addiction? That might explain all of the extravagant attitude in your inept and highly toxic response.
+Trent Timoy I just stated that you present a weak argument. You responded by saying that I have a crack addiction. So it is safe for me to assume that we are in agreement?
The problem with those who disagree with Scalia, and originalism and textualism more broadly, is that they consistently conflate their own desired outcome with what the Constitution requires. So, for example a person will say, "I believe same-sex couples should be permitted to get married; therefore, it's a Constitutionally protected right." That simply does not follow. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage at all, much less does it require the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. If you believe in same-sex marriage then persuade your fellow citizens and, either through the legislature or ballot initiative, create that right democratically. But the notion that the Constitution prohibits states from proscribing same-sex marriage is ludicrous. Most people simply either cannot or will not make a distinction between their public policy preferences and legal reasoning and interpretation, which is why there is so much political wrangling over the court. If the justices would simply return to textualism then the vast majority of political fights could return properly to the political realm and away from the courts.
i would attempt to do so, but i am under the impression that for you there would be no amount of logic or reason that you would consider a sufficient explanation. in other words, if you dont get it, i dont think you ever will.
Last time I checked, the 14th amendment guaranteed that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. In this case, Ohio denied same sex couples equal protection in the right of marriage, and failed to provide a legitimate reason to do so.
+Kati Braun It's a shame that he was likely murdered by the New World Order. But all of humanity is awaking to their plans and good will overcome evil, once again.
Mark Marsh IKR. He was a bigot who leveraged any hope of a future where Washington would be - for the people and by the people. He took a legislation of sluts and turned them into crack whores doing anything for money.
+Justin Hopkins You seem to have good intentions and I also dislike the death penalty. But this is a democracy and we can only change this if we get together and amend constitution to end the death penalty. Ultimately this law is a state issue. God bless.
***** Republican see it as different to fit there belief you have that backward. This country was not based on religion found farther were not Christian for most part. They were wise to see the conflict established religion causes. NRA twist constitution there as well. They take gun rights out of context with slavery when it was written in period and context of slave patrols. A agreement between north and south civil war.
I love how when analysis started to dig at all beneath the surface, Piers made sure we moved onto the next hot topic. It's important that Americans don't learn to think, but just learn to judge based on someone's position on something, rather than a person's reason for their position on something. America. Dumbing down the population with team-politics and 30-second quips.
" a majority of Americans believe…", "going out of fashion"… When people use these terms with respect to court rulings, they show that they have no understanding of how our government works. The judiciary is not supposed to decide anything based upon public opinion. They decide based upon the LAW. Period. If public opion has changed, if somehow people believe that laws need to better "reflect the times", then you vote reresentatives into the Legislative branch of government to write laws that reflect those changes. Period.
So many people don’t understand the word, “punishment “. Water boarding is a form of interrogation which is illegal . It is not a punishment decreed by a judge.
As simply awful as Piers Morgan is, he is equally that fantastic in this interview, and it is absolutely clear he has tremendous respect for Justice Scalia. Bravo. CBZ
The justice exhibits a discipline in his work that strictly adhered to the letter of the Constitution and the laws in question. Most of us cannot employ such discipline much less take advantage his legal education and experience. Unfortunately he didn’t employ that discipline during his meals. If he had we might still have him with us. Salute, Signore!
I don't always care for Scalia's opinions, but watching him highlight Morgan's idiocy and silly redundant arguments makes me want to send flowers to his grave.
"I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right every time." One of the things I most love about the justices -- all of them -- is their ability to be so forthright. I completely disagree with that assertion, but it's a fair assertion for him to make so it's not as infuriating as the arguments that spin-docotored politicians make that are not only disagreeable, but also just offensively stupid.
+lekoman "I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right every time." What that means is that it is up to We The People to amend flaws in the constitution. And it is exactly what you want your judges to say rather than take things into their own hands. They are given a job (whether they like the outcomes or not). An when the uphold their oath in that way, they are to be commended.
Clearly Peirs Morgan is in too deep over his head in this interview. Morgan can not even separate the fact that Justice Scalia gives a legal opinion and may not necessarily mean he agrees.
We lost a great man... He read the constitution the way it was written and was able to put aside his personal beliefs and biases while interpreting it. "We the people are rightful masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert it." -President Abraham Lincoln
If I could trade brains with one person, it would be into the brain of Scalia, who is virtually always correct in his INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Liberals describe him as the most brilliant of all the justices.Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gisburgh, and Keagan have vast intellects as well. Scalia is just out of their league, even Roberts'. Bus when Roberts votes with the Left when it is clear Kennedy has abandoned him, he often joins them so HE can write the opinion. A Master Chief. Cars/
Piers does not get that just because the "Cruel and Unusual PUNISHMENTS' clause does not apply to torture, does NOT mean that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses would allow use of torture by the government.
I think Morgan does well here. The interaction is complex. I am wondering, though, whether Justice Scalia wants to give the public one more shot before he retires and really hit these interviewers back hard.
Love him or hate him, Scalia knew that he wasn't a king and didn't treat his role in interpreting the Constitution like he was such. If only the same could be said about most of these liberal justices.
_Love him or hate him, Scalia knew that he wasn't a king and didn't treat his role in interpreting the Constitution like he was such. If only the same could be said about most of these liberal justices._ Oh, it CAN and needs to be said about 'all of these liberal justices' - but not by you, evidently.
So its pretty obvious that Piers doesn't understand the job of the court. The court isn't there to decide what is moral or isn't, it isn't there to decide the 'correct' political decisions.. It is there ONLY to cross reference it to the constitution and see if it is LEGAL.. Scalia hated flag burning, he saw it as wrong.. But his job isn't to determine its moral implications but to see if its constitutional or not. The LEGISLATORS are supposed to make laws based on morality, popularity & necessity.
Pierz totally interrupts this genius, and makes small talk out of what he knows absolutely nothing about. God Bless Antonin Scalia! He puts up with this idiot like a complete gentleman!
Ya know when UA-cam decides to put a link to its side of any given subject that the establishment want to cover something up. Pretty good guide of government or corporate wrongdoing 😂 they also get Piers to cover lots of them like a good little boy
Torture is either something a sadist gets off on a punishment or an enhanced interrogation method there is no other meaning I can think of. All of the above a not in line with saying it is not a punishment unless you just randomly hurt a random person for no reason which is already covered also if you are doing because of suspicion then it is a way of securing a false confession. So it compels people to act against their constitutional rights as you could say we will stop the torture if you sign this and what you just signed says you are happy to be tortured.
Not all torture is enticing a preconceived confession. If you think about it you can use it to get missing pieces that no one else would know. And if they don't know, they really don't know. I believe there would be proper techniques to this that would save lives and be of the greater good.
Opposing equality is a sign of profoundly flawed character. Hiding bigotry in the name of religion is cowardly. The worst of the cowards are those who are gay and side with the bigots for fear of being victimized. There is no virtue in discriminating against others. No matter what your religion is, don't ever blame IT for YOUR bigotry or YOUR cowardice. We need to get along as a global community. Life's too short to waste a single moment hating our fellow man. Live and let live, and we can all enjoy paradise on earth right here and right now. We all die soon enough and thus far all remained dead. Let's LIVE and be loving and peaceful.
You're most definitely correct. As baffling as it is, I'm seeing many people hailing Scalia as a genius. I'm not aware any person fitting the description of genius advocating for inequality. I have to question the character of those in agreement with this man. Also, I agree with your "live and let live" statement. The foundation of the worlds issues resides in viewing different groups as lesser than oneself. This causes tremendous division. Religion is one of its biggest contributors. I'll never know why people find it so difficult to get along, as it's much easier than being divisive, and in general nasty. Though, it can be said that the idiots of the world have always had the loudest voice.
He believes in federalism, an idea that original intent of the constitution written back in the year 1776 should apply in 2016 and beyond. Simply put, if the original constitution allowed slavery, then it should be allowed now. Insanity knows no bounds.
Justice Scalia is an incredibly well-spoken, thoughtful and intelligent man whose responses to Piers' questions are on point and succinct. A legitimate Justice, living up to the honor of the title. Wonderful.
Steven Hunter, how about trying a valid argument? First of all, the Constitution speaks to the form of government we would have so an enumeration of our rights would not be expounded there. Second, there was never meant to be a complete compendium of our rights anywhere else; see the 9th Amendment. Third, the court is not bound by the Constitution alone but by stare decisis which has firmly established a right to marry who we choose; see Loving v Virginia, Griswold v Connecticut. Fourth, from the Declaration of Independence to the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to any number of cases thereafter (Plyer v Doe, Strauder v Weat Virginia) have provided for equal protection under the law. So what makes one person's wish to marry more valid than another's based solely on the gender of the person they marry? Originalist indeed! The only thing original about it is the degree of distortion required to justify your premise.
So, as I understand it, this is the kind of stuff that Scalia came up with by faithfully adhering to the Constitution: Money is the same thing as speech. (The more money the more speech is fine) A Corporation is a person (not sure if he saw any restrictions). Cruel and unusual punishment is not torture. A militia, as in people, is the same thing as an individual person.
It must be literally painful for someone with Scalia's literal genius and brilliant mind to suffer fools and their foolish questions, especially for such an uninformed, left wing hack like Piers Morgan, a man who my 5th grader (literally) knows more about the original intent of the Constitution's Framers than him. Almost funny. Thank God Scalia is the one whose voice actually counts. Despite his reputation, he's not the most conservative justice. Thomas is, and it isn't close. Cars.
just because you speak with a posh British accent doesn't mean you really know anything. Morgan doesn't even understand the court does not make law. It interprets the constitution.
For me....The original 1780s ideas of what are rights and what are not rights are hard to apply in today's world... Scalia uses the example of the death penalty being the only penalty for a felony. Today we have a million convicted felons. So this means executing 1 million people according to the original laws and punishments of 1800. Homosexual sex is listed as a felony in many US states today. This mean executing all of them?
WHAT?!!!!! What planet are you on. Are you talking about the fox liberals? Because I have NEVER heard a true liberal ever justify ANY argument through religion. Its always the conservatives that preach "This is the christian way," or "This is how God intended it." And for your information about 40% of liberals don't even have a specified religion so it'd be pretty hard for one to base an argument on religion.
10:55 Morgan spoke without thinking, defeating his own argument. I suspect that after he heard himself say this, inwardly, he conceded the entire line of inquiry. “You want to learn the first rule…you'd know if you ever spent a day in your life...you never open your mouth till you know what the shot is.” -Glengarry Glen Ross
if the death penalty really bothered scalia, he would rule it to be cruel and unusual punishment. or, he would resign as a judge because he felt he had a conflict of interest. obviously the death penalty doesn't bother him that much.
"He's an intellectual giant." LOL. From Heller: "North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”... This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia-but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly." So let's look at the parts of the constitution he refers to to see if they turn this right of the people to bear arms for the defence of the state into a right of individuals to carry guns for self-defence: XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia, and all officers of the regular army of this State. XVIII. The Governor. for the time being, shall be captain-general and commander in chief of the militia; and, in the recess of the General Assembly, shall have power, by and with the advice of the Council of State, to embody the militia for the public safety. XXXV. That no person in the State shall holtl mole than one lucrative office, at any one time: -- Provided, That no appointment in the militia, or the office of a Justice of the Peace, shall be considered as a lucrative office. I don't see it.
***** said "Yeah...you don't see it. That's why HE's the supreme court justice. ------------------------------ “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .” Scalia said that it was implausible that this right is militia related (which it OBVIOUSLY is) because the militia is mentioned elswhere in the same constitution. You tell me how any of the following makes it implausible that the right above is militia related. I mean, isn't the purpose of a state militia to defend the state? XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia, and all officers of the regular army of this State. XVIII. The Governor. for the time being, shall be captain-general and commander in chief of the militia; and, in the recess of the General Assembly, shall have power, by and with the advice of the Council of State, to embody the militia for the public safety. XXXV. That no person in the State shall holtl mole than one lucrative office, at any one time: -- Provided, That no appointment in the militia, or the office of a Justice of the Peace, shall be considered as a lucrative office.
Guns were a fact of everyday life for many people. The idea that people back then only owned guns for a militia back then is ridiculous, but the other reasons they owned guns had nothing to do with the constitution, so it wasn't mentioned. Therefore, the idea that the founders would have only allowed people to own guns for a militia purpose is ridiculous. It kind of reminds me of the argument we hear from the religious right when they say people shouldn't really expect a separation of church and state because that wasn't actually in the constitution, it was based on a personal letter to Danbury Baptists. And Scalia already said he wasn't a strict constructionist.
sam little said: "Guns were a fact of everyday life for many people. The idea that people back then only owned guns for a militia back then is ridiculous,.." --------------------------------------- True. But the fact that some people owned guns for private purposes at the time isn't evidence for the purpose of the Second Amendment. But let's stick to the point of Scalia & Co distorting this militia provision from North Carolina. From Heller: "North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”... This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia-but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly." But the references to the militia elsewhere in the same constitution DON'T make it implausible that this provision is a militia provision. XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia,... Which militia if not the one in the arms bearing provision? So it isn't just "plausible," it's OBVIOUS that this provision is about rendering military service in the state militia for the security of the state. It's actually evidence for the REAL meaning of "bear arms" because it's clearly a militia provision even though it doesn't contain the word "militia."
Bush Chaney water boarding ,torcher that a crime. Judge a snake around water boarding it happens constitution don't say water boarding.{paraphrase} Judge playing dumb.
So he says that the physical act of burning a flag is speech, but the government torturing somebody outside of a trial and a conviction is not punishment. I guess according to this judge, that if a State wanted to torture all people of a certain race or class, they could easily do that by a simple vote of State assembly abolishing any laws forbidding torture. As long as they didn't have a trial which found them guilty of a crime, they could just go and grab anybody they wanted and torture them. Those people would not have any federal protection under the Constitution against that. And what if the federal government decided to do that? If burning a flag is speech, then a government torturing somebody is punishment. And if it is not punishment, then what is it? It is not punishment that was given out in the State's reaction to a legally defined crime - but it is punishment in a broader sense. Torture for information should be considered punishment for not telling the State the information which it wishes to receive. Torture is punishment in a vaguer and more generalized and broader sense, but it is still punishment. His understanding, or I should say misunderstanding, of the Constitution is absurd here. I fairly ignorant, and I don't know anything about this judge - but it's frustrating that the first words I hear him speak are so utterly wrong IMAO.
+jimmi izzy There is a Supremacy Clause, and an Equal Protection Clause, and penumbral rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and the Due Process Clause (which contains both procedural and substantive rights that Scalia recognized). All of these would prevent what you're describing. Also, he was not a "judge." Torture is not "punishment" according to the Eighth Amendment. That is all he was saying. No need to read anything else into his words. Scalia was perhaps the most ardent defender of one's right to a fair trial and right to be free from arbitrary government action. I suggest you read his opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld again (or once, at least) before you mischaracterize his views like this.
jimmi izzy well, its torture, not torture as punishment given by the courts. During the wars of 1812, british prisoners were tortured as to extract information from them.
+Evil Bastard Wow you got that from my comment? No I mean having a new judge who still protects the constitution, but with less bias towards women, less out of date views etc. Just an overall better judge than him.
+Evil Bastard I don't think it's out of date, I just feel that some of the judges interpretations are out of date. Thanks for clarifying I appreciate that!
The job of a Supreme Court Judge is to interpret the constitution, not give his own morals and beliefs.
Amen. Scalia speaks like a man wielding power not a Supreme Court justice.
I am 20 years old. I have never had to fortune of looking up to a man on earth as a role model, until a couple days ago when I discovered Justice Scalia. His integrity and love of blind justice is so honorable.
This is like a fight between a little kid who thinks he's tough, and Mike Tyson
+mike spence Are you suggesting that a child can not confront a parent with a reasonable and pervasive argument given the context of the circumstances? You are saying that someone of Scalia's resume can not be inexact or disillusioned with his subjective interpretation of laws and the constitution? That's called arrogance and it was the eventual trait that consumed this man and gave him peace of mind in his final moment of existence.
+Trent Timoy Most great philosophers, writers, and lawyers would argue that you have ineffective communication skills. When developing an argument, you should be more direct and avoid using extravagant words. Regardless of your feelings towards the man, it is undeniable that Scalia had an adept understanding of law and the constitution. He simply explains originalism, and that his personal beliefs should not effect how he interoperates the constitution as it was originated.
+Ed Molloy Reasonable and pervasive are extravagant words? Have you tried rehab to give up your crack addiction? That might explain all of the extravagant attitude in your inept and highly toxic response.
+Trent Timoy I just stated that you present a weak argument. You responded by saying that I have a crack addiction. So it is safe for me to assume that we are in agreement?
Ed Molloy In agreement that you are pervasively and reasonably moronic? By all means.
Amazing how much Morgan is out of his depth. He is serving up heaters and Scalia is swatting them away like softballs. Simply amazing...
The problem with those who disagree with Scalia, and originalism and textualism more broadly, is that they consistently conflate their own desired outcome with what the Constitution requires. So, for example a person will say, "I believe same-sex couples should be permitted to get married; therefore, it's a Constitutionally protected right." That simply does not follow. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage at all, much less does it require the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. If you believe in same-sex marriage then persuade your fellow citizens and, either through the legislature or ballot initiative, create that right democratically. But the notion that the Constitution prohibits states from proscribing same-sex marriage is ludicrous.
Most people simply either cannot or will not make a distinction between their public policy preferences and legal reasoning and interpretation, which is why there is so much political wrangling over the court. If the justices would simply return to textualism then the vast majority of political fights could return properly to the political realm and away from the courts.
you have a bad understanding of the the constitution.
i would attempt to do so, but i am under the impression that for you there would be no amount of logic or reason that you would consider a sufficient explanation.
in other words, if you dont get it, i dont think you ever will.
***** yup. fucking pwnt.
Same sex marriage is settled law now. Get over it.
Last time I checked, the 14th amendment guaranteed that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. In this case, Ohio denied same sex couples equal protection in the right of marriage, and failed to provide a legitimate reason to do so.
Scalia is the best! Miss him, him and Thomas helped inspire many (including myself) to appreciate our true constitution.
does piers do any research before his interviews?
+ubermensch826 yeah he read the NYT and new yorker lol
RIP Scalia.
+Alex woods He burns in hell, as we speak-
Martin Pescador Fuck You
"Martin Pescador Fuck You"
Typical 'right'-wing wisdom.
@@martinpescador5642 Why? For doing his job the way it was intended to be done??
@@davegreene8588 =💩
Poor Piers... has such a hard time with words and definitions.
I miss this guy, especially today.
"What does that mean?" -Piers Morgan pretty much summed up
I watched this to learn more about Scalia. I like him.
+Kati Braun It's a shame that he was likely murdered by the New World Order.
But all of humanity is awaking to their plans and good will overcome evil, once again.
+2Truth4Liberty He was murdered by Monsanto, Huston Steak House, Ben and Jerry, The Blue Bonnet Girl, C&H Sugar, Libby, Budweiser, and Philip Morris.
***** Clever and appreciated.
***** We're good
Mark Marsh IKR. He was a bigot who leveraged any hope of a future where Washington would be - for the people and by the people. He took a legislation of sluts and turned them into crack whores doing anything for money.
I'm not a fan of Scalia's views, but i wouldn't call him a bigot or stupid. The man is a genius, he just sees the constitution differently than some.
Seems to me that no genius would regard the death penalty as constitutional.
+Justin Hopkins You seem to have good intentions and I also dislike the death penalty. But this is a democracy and we can only change this if we get together and amend constitution to end the death penalty. Ultimately this law is a state issue.
God bless.
+Brandon Petruska He was one of the smartest people in politics, but he did not always act honestly. A lot of his views were contradictory.
***** Republican see it as different to fit there belief you have that backward. This country was not based on religion found farther were not Christian for most part. They were wise to see the conflict established religion causes. NRA twist constitution there as well. They take gun rights out of context with slavery when it was written in period and context of slave patrols. A agreement between north and south civil war.
Brandon Petruska
lol then SOME? There’s plenty others that share his views, I’m one of them.
My gosh, Piers Morgan doesn't seem to understand what his interviewees are actually saying!
I love how when analysis started to dig at all beneath the surface, Piers made sure we moved onto the next hot topic. It's important that Americans don't learn to think, but just learn to judge based on someone's position on something, rather than a person's reason for their position on something. America. Dumbing down the population with team-politics and 30-second quips.
Exactly.
"Don't like it? Pass a law!"
Great video! Very educational, I loved the effort. Bravo!
Piers is just so unbiased doesn't CNN realize this alienates the middle and right?
3:07 no, it's lovely of course. Shows a real compassionate, humane country.
" a majority of Americans believe…",
"going out of fashion"…
When people use these terms with respect to court rulings, they show that they have no understanding of how our government works.
The judiciary is not supposed to decide anything based upon public opinion. They decide based upon the LAW. Period.
If public opion has changed, if somehow people believe that laws need to better "reflect the times", then you vote reresentatives into the Legislative branch of government to write laws that reflect those changes. Period.
It is important to get things out to the public. Thank you.
So many people don’t understand the word, “punishment “. Water boarding is a form of interrogation which is illegal . It is not a punishment decreed by a judge.
RIP
As simply awful as Piers Morgan is, he is equally that fantastic in this interview, and it is absolutely clear he has tremendous respect for Justice Scalia. Bravo. CBZ
+Carson Zickefoose Are you being sarcastic?
Fuck Him, he’s a tool. Glad he’s gone, and back where he belongs.
(Piers)
RIP, your Honor. Fly high.
damn it, I wanted to hear about what he was mentioning about The freedom of speech before Piers cut him off
Why did you alter the video speed?!
The justice exhibits a discipline in his work that strictly adhered to the letter of the Constitution and the laws in question. Most of us cannot employ such discipline much less take advantage his legal education and experience. Unfortunately he didn’t employ that discipline during his meals. If he had we might still have him with us. Salute, Signore!
Piers Morgan isn't qualified for this interview and the death penalty is extremely popular.
Piers is a lilliputian
and it just kills me
to know that
he'll never realize this.
This was an attack. Then he dies? hmm
I don't always care for Scalia's opinions, but watching him highlight Morgan's idiocy and silly redundant arguments makes me want to send flowers to his grave.
"I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right every time." One of the things I most love about the justices -- all of them -- is their ability to be so forthright. I completely disagree with that assertion, but it's a fair assertion for him to make so it's not as infuriating as the arguments that spin-docotored politicians make that are not only disagreeable, but also just offensively stupid.
+lekoman "I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right every time."
What that means is that it is up to We The People to amend flaws in the constitution. And it is exactly what you want your judges to say rather than take things into their own hands.
They are given a job (whether they like the outcomes or not).
An when the uphold their oath in that way, they are to be commended.
Piers Morgan LACKS respect.
Clearly Peirs Morgan is in too deep over his head in this interview. Morgan can not even separate the fact that Justice Scalia gives a legal opinion and may not necessarily mean he agrees.
We lost a great man... He read the constitution the way it was written and was able to put aside his personal beliefs and biases while interpreting it.
"We the people are rightful masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert it." -President Abraham Lincoln
Wow Ant is so amazing. Godamm he is good!!!! Rip
If I could trade brains with one person, it would be into the brain of Scalia, who is virtually always correct in his INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Liberals describe him as the most brilliant of all the justices.Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gisburgh, and Keagan have vast intellects as well. Scalia is just out of their league, even Roberts'. Bus when Roberts votes with the Left when it is clear Kennedy has abandoned him, he often joins them so HE can write the opinion. A Master Chief. Cars/
Scalia kicked the bucket today! Hahahahahahaha!
+darkpill Wtf? get your dome checked bro
+darkpill Good goddamned riddance..!!!
Feel good inside to hate someone you know nothing about?
jim Hol I know he was a racist and a bigot. He's catholic too - so not the brightest lightbulb ...
Spoken like a true christian :D
Is he going to ask anything about the book or just ask Scalia to justify himself.
What if you run over my dog with your car Pierce, WHAT THEN!!! Outlaw cars is what I say!!!
Many people from England think we are still a colony.
If you take a super computer and input algorithm of laws and constitution. Youll get answers like that.
This is like a kitten trying to taunt a lion
Poor guy. I almost feel sorry for him.
It's truly embarrassing how much smarter Scalia is than Piers Morgan
Piers does not get that just because the "Cruel and Unusual PUNISHMENTS' clause does not apply to torture, does NOT mean that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses would allow use of torture by the government.
I think Morgan does well here. The interaction is complex. I am wondering, though, whether Justice Scalia wants to give the public one more shot before he retires and really hit these interviewers back hard.
lol
great man scalia
The title of this video should be "Piers Morgan Gets Spanked by Supreme Court Justice Scalia".
Love him or hate him, Scalia knew that he wasn't a king and didn't treat his role in interpreting the Constitution like he was such. If only the same could be said about most of these liberal justices.
_Love him or hate him, Scalia knew that he wasn't a king and didn't treat his role in interpreting the Constitution like he was such. If only the same could be said about most of these liberal justices._
Oh, it CAN and needs to be said about 'all of these liberal justices' - but not by you, evidently.
Deport Piers Morgan back to the UK.
So its pretty obvious that Piers doesn't understand the job of the court. The court isn't there to decide what is moral or isn't, it isn't there to decide the 'correct' political decisions.. It is there ONLY to cross reference it to the constitution and see if it is LEGAL..
Scalia hated flag burning, he saw it as wrong.. But his job isn't to determine its moral implications but to see if its constitutional or not. The LEGISLATORS are supposed to make laws based on morality, popularity & necessity.
“Newspapers arent trying to buy elections”. Is piers serious?
Pierz totally interrupts this genius, and makes small talk out of what he knows absolutely nothing about. God Bless Antonin Scalia! He puts up with this idiot like a complete gentleman!
You Americans can keep him.
4 words: National Defense Authorization Act , makes your rights worthless
At what point during this interview did Piers find himself completely outmatched in intellect...
Ya know when UA-cam decides to put a link to its side of any given subject that the establishment want to cover something up. Pretty good guide of government or corporate wrongdoing 😂 they also get Piers to cover lots of them like a good little boy
Would Justice Scalia have ruled that Jeremy Clarkson had a 1st amendment right to punch Piers Morgan?
Torture is either something a sadist gets off on a punishment or an enhanced interrogation method there is no other meaning I can think of. All of the above a not in line with saying it is not a punishment unless you just randomly hurt a random person for no reason which is already covered also if you are doing because of suspicion then it is a way of securing a false confession. So it compels people to act against their constitutional rights as you could say we will stop the torture if you sign this and what you just signed says you are happy to be tortured.
Not all torture is enticing a preconceived confession. If you think about it you can use it to get missing pieces that no one else would know. And if they don't know, they really don't know. I believe there would be proper techniques to this that would save lives and be of the greater good.
Scalia makes Piers look so stupid. You can see that he is annoyed at his stupidity.
If unions are speech, corporations are speech. Pretty simple.
Gun control = Deprivation of rights under color of law Like the Red flag law.
When did treason become reason ?
Opposing equality is a sign of profoundly flawed character. Hiding bigotry in the name of religion is cowardly. The worst of the cowards are those who are gay and side with the bigots for fear of being victimized. There is no virtue in discriminating against others. No matter what your religion is, don't ever blame IT for YOUR bigotry or YOUR cowardice. We need to get along as a global community. Life's too short to waste a single moment hating our fellow man. Live and let live, and we can all enjoy paradise on earth right here and right now. We all die soon enough and thus far all remained dead. Let's LIVE and be loving and peaceful.
You're most definitely correct. As baffling as it is, I'm seeing many people hailing Scalia as a genius. I'm not aware any person fitting the description of genius advocating for inequality. I have to question the character of those in agreement with this man. Also, I agree with your "live and let live" statement. The foundation of the worlds issues resides in viewing different groups as lesser than oneself. This causes tremendous division. Religion is one of its biggest contributors. I'll never know why people find it so difficult to get along, as it's much easier than being divisive, and in general nasty. Though, it can be said that the idiots of the world have always had the loudest voice.
He believes in federalism, an idea that original intent of the constitution written back in the year 1776 should apply in 2016 and beyond. Simply put, if the original constitution allowed slavery, then it should be allowed now. Insanity knows no bounds.
David K no. It was amended... so the constitution he read always had the 13th amendment in it
Justice Scalia is an incredibly well-spoken, thoughtful and intelligent man whose responses to Piers' questions are on point and succinct. A legitimate Justice, living up to the honor of the title. Wonderful.
The only reason Piers made the interview constructive, because if he tried playing any games Scalia would have absolutely destroyed him.
I'm a liberal. I would want everything to be my way. But I love this guy. He's true.
once again Pierce morgan is made to look a fool
This is so cringe. Piers Morgan either misunderstands what is being said or continually interrupts the response.
Steven Hunter, how about trying a valid argument? First of all, the Constitution speaks to the form of government we would have so an enumeration of our rights would not be expounded there. Second, there was never meant to be a complete compendium of our rights anywhere else; see the 9th Amendment. Third, the court is not bound by the Constitution alone but by stare decisis which has firmly established a right to marry who we choose; see Loving v Virginia, Griswold v Connecticut. Fourth, from the Declaration of Independence to the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to any number of cases thereafter (Plyer v Doe, Strauder v Weat Virginia) have provided for equal protection under the law. So what makes one person's wish to marry more valid than another's based solely on the gender of the person they marry? Originalist indeed! The only thing original about it is the degree of distortion required to justify your premise.
15 minutes of illuminati psy ops
Come on Piers...you keep cutting off your guests when they are in the middle of making an interesting point directly answering your prior question.
Description
The law is an ass as the saying goes.
So, as I understand it, this is the kind of stuff that Scalia came up with by faithfully adhering to the Constitution:
Money is the same thing as speech. (The more money the more speech is fine)
A Corporation is a person (not sure if he saw any restrictions).
Cruel and unusual punishment is not torture.
A militia, as in people, is the same thing as an individual person.
It must be literally painful for someone with Scalia's literal genius and brilliant mind to suffer fools and their foolish questions, especially for such an uninformed, left wing hack like Piers Morgan, a man who my 5th grader (literally) knows more about the original intent of the Constitution's Framers than him. Almost funny. Thank God Scalia is the one whose voice actually counts. Despite his reputation, he's not the most conservative justice. Thomas is, and it isn't close. Cars.
Those who are of the LAW are not of FAITH. That's in the Bible.
Pierc fucked up the 1st amendment question.
How did Scalia fall for this clown, as a valid journalist...
It doesn't feel right having Piers Morgan interviewing American public figures.
just because you speak with a posh British accent doesn't mean you really know anything. Morgan doesn't even understand the court does not make law. It interprets the constitution.
For me....The original 1780s ideas of what are rights and what are not rights are hard to apply in today's world... Scalia uses the example of the death penalty being the only penalty for a felony. Today we have a million convicted felons. So this means executing 1 million people according to the original laws and punishments of 1800. Homosexual sex is listed as a felony in many US states today. This mean executing all of them?
WHAT?!!!!! What planet are you on. Are you talking about the fox liberals? Because I have NEVER heard a true liberal ever justify ANY argument through religion. Its always the conservatives that preach "This is the christian way," or "This is how God intended it." And for your information about 40% of liberals don't even have a specified religion so it'd be pretty hard for one to base an argument on religion.
Justice Scalia was wise in the reading of America's law... rest in peace brother Scalia. Thank you for your service .
Piers Morgan should have died, not Scalia...
10:55 Morgan spoke without thinking, defeating his own argument. I suspect that after he heard himself say this, inwardly, he conceded the entire line of inquiry.
“You want to learn the first rule…you'd know if you ever spent a day
in your life...you never open your
mouth till you know what the shot
is.” -Glengarry Glen Ross
Judging by this interview, Piers Morgan is by no means an "intellectual giant"
bigoz145 Justice Scalia is often referred to as an "intellectual giant ".
if the death penalty really bothered scalia, he would rule it to be cruel and unusual punishment. or, he would resign as a judge because he felt he had a conflict of interest. obviously the death penalty doesn't bother him that much.
***** That went over your head, I think.
MWSloat Care to elaborate?
piers got smashed so many times
"He's an intellectual giant." LOL.
From Heller:
"North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”... This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia-but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."
So let's look at the parts of the constitution he refers to to see if they turn this right of the people to bear arms for the defence of the state into a right of individuals to carry guns for self-defence:
XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia, and all officers of the regular army of this State.
XVIII. The Governor. for the time being, shall be captain-general and commander in chief of the militia; and, in the recess of the General Assembly, shall have power, by and with the advice of the Council of State, to embody the militia for the public safety.
XXXV. That no person in the State shall holtl mole than one lucrative office, at any one time: -- Provided, That no appointment in the militia, or the office of a Justice of the Peace, shall be considered as a lucrative office.
I don't see it.
***** said "Yeah...you don't see it. That's why HE's the supreme court justice.
------------------------------
“That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”
Scalia said that it was implausible that this right is militia related (which it OBVIOUSLY is) because the militia is mentioned elswhere in the same constitution. You tell me how any of the following makes it implausible that the right above is militia related. I mean, isn't the purpose of a state militia to defend the state?
XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia, and all officers of the regular army of this State.
XVIII. The Governor. for the time being, shall be captain-general and commander in chief of the militia; and, in the recess of the General Assembly, shall have power, by and with the advice of the Council of State, to embody the militia for the public safety.
XXXV. That no person in the State shall holtl mole than one lucrative office, at any one time: -- Provided, That no appointment in the militia, or the office of a Justice of the Peace, shall be considered as a lucrative office.
Guns were a fact of everyday life for many people. The idea that people back then only owned guns for a militia back then is ridiculous, but the other reasons they owned guns had nothing to do with the constitution, so it wasn't mentioned. Therefore, the idea that the founders would have only allowed people to own guns for a militia purpose is ridiculous. It kind of reminds me of the argument we hear from the religious right when they say people shouldn't really expect a separation of church and state because that wasn't actually in the constitution, it was based on a personal letter to Danbury Baptists. And Scalia already said he wasn't a strict constructionist.
sam little said: "Guns were a fact of everyday life for many people. The idea that people back then only owned guns for a militia back then is ridiculous,.."
---------------------------------------
True. But the fact that some people owned guns for private purposes at the time isn't evidence for the purpose of the Second Amendment.
But let's stick to the point of Scalia & Co distorting this militia provision from North Carolina.
From Heller:
"North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”... This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia-but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."
But the references to the militia elsewhere in the same constitution DON'T make it implausible that this provision is a militia provision.
XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia,...
Which militia if not the one in the arms bearing provision? So it isn't just "plausible," it's OBVIOUS that this provision is about rendering military service in the state militia for the security of the state. It's actually evidence for the REAL meaning of "bear arms" because it's clearly a militia provision even though it doesn't contain the word "militia."
Very scary that this guy was in such a powerful position. This is why presidents matter.
Bush Chaney water boarding ,torcher that a crime. Judge a snake around water boarding it happens constitution don't say water boarding.{paraphrase} Judge playing dumb.
This British dunce is clearly out of his depth.
Piers Morgan is a horrible interviewer. He thinks he is smarter than Scalia.
Scalia just shows, who narrow minded you can be as a male and become a justice for Life....
he would have chaged his tune real fast if, he was waterboarded and tortured at Gunatanamo Bay! A real Hypocrite..............................
So he says that the physical act of burning a flag is speech, but the government torturing somebody outside of a trial and a conviction is not punishment.
I guess according to this judge, that if a State wanted to torture all people of a certain race or class, they could easily do that by a simple vote of State assembly abolishing any laws forbidding torture. As long as they didn't have a trial which found them guilty of a crime, they could just go and grab anybody they wanted and torture them. Those people would not have any federal protection under the Constitution against that.
And what if the federal government decided to do that?
If burning a flag is speech, then a government torturing somebody is punishment.
And if it is not punishment, then what is it? It is not punishment that was given out in the State's reaction to a legally defined crime - but it is punishment in a broader sense. Torture for information should be considered punishment for not telling the State the information which it wishes to receive. Torture is punishment in a vaguer and more generalized and broader sense, but it is still punishment.
His understanding, or I should say misunderstanding, of the Constitution is absurd here. I fairly ignorant, and I don't know anything about this judge - but it's frustrating that the first words I hear him speak are so utterly wrong IMAO.
+jimmi izzy
There is a Supremacy Clause, and an Equal Protection Clause, and penumbral rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and the Due Process Clause (which contains both procedural and substantive rights that Scalia recognized). All of these would prevent what you're describing. Also, he was not a "judge."
Torture is not "punishment" according to the Eighth Amendment. That is all he was saying. No need to read anything else into his words. Scalia was perhaps the most ardent defender of one's right to a fair trial and right to be free from arbitrary government action. I suggest you read his opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld again (or once, at least) before you mischaracterize his views like this.
jimmi izzy well, its torture, not torture as punishment given by the courts.
During the wars of 1812, british prisoners were tortured as to extract information from them.
Now that he's dead, hopefully we get a better, less conservative judge!!
+Jeffrey Adams liberals need to go mars and have a life.
+Michael W yaaaaa ok, have fun with never making any true progress.
+Jeffrey Adams No progress is great when proposed "progress" is destroying free markets for enslavement.
+Evil Bastard Wow you got that from my comment? No I mean having a new judge who still protects the constitution, but with less bias towards women, less out of date views etc. Just an overall better judge than him.
+Evil Bastard I don't think it's out of date, I just feel that some of the judges interpretations are out of date. Thanks for clarifying I appreciate that!