Justice Scalia on Judges

[doowoplover534]

Scalia is nothing but a republican hack appointed by Bush 1. He is to blame for the Bush election victory by not counting the votes. He should be ashamed to be the one responsible for the illegal wars in the middle east and the loss of lives ,by the millions, for oil profits . How can this scum judge look in the mirror? He disgraces his country and the Italians.

[joejohnson043]

@doowoplover534 your post is off by 8 years. You should be able to see by now that we didn't actually get any oil profits, though we should have. They haven't even repaid a dime that we spent on those wars, and have awarded the best oil contracts to our enemy/competitors.

[CfuenmayorJr123]

@joejohnson043 I feel the statement "the 'activist' judge is a despot..." is so inane, that I cannot go by without refuting it. The arguably activist judge John Marhsall gave the Supreme Court the power of Judicial review, and where would Scalia be without that?; another activist judge, Earl Warren, so mightily pushed to have equality finally materialize in this country. The Constituion was left deliberately vague so that it could be a living document, not a static one.

[sklanger]

@CfuenmayorJr123 The Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. Art. III's "the judicial power" encompasses the power of judicial review. What does vagueness have to do with whether laws are living or static?

Contracts are vague, so we interpret them differently than at the time they were made? Wills are interpreted differently than what the testator intends? Legislation doesn't mean what it meant at the time of enactment? Vagueness is carte blanche for lawlessness?

[joejohnson043]

@CfuenmayorJr123 try to imagine a court using their 'living law' doctrine to make laws completely against what you view as right and decent. Would you still like their activism? What is your recourse? Congress, passing a law to overturn judges interpreting on their own whim? But then they declare those new laws don't apply. At what point do we need a legislature? We would just have a big fat civil war over who gets to appoint judges, and the winner can appoint our oligarchs for life....

[reel1840]

give me a clear answer!

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, CSPAN.

[SUNSNARE06]

Scalia makes a lot of sense here, people need to realize that judges are not lawmakers, they are merely interpreters of the law, and they are bound to the Constitution and the law according to each case, judges that think they can make the law should frankly not be on the bench, let the law made by the people decide cases, not judges making the law from the bench

[MrTydrag]

don't make the law, huh? Citizens United

[kemar207]

While Scalia accurately states what judges are supposed to do, the reality is judges routinely ignore the law and interpret it in absurd and dishonest ways to reach the result they desire in the particular case before them. Ironically, this approach creates injustice because the justice system is premised on the idea that the same rules, laws, and principles apply equally to everyone.

[DStrike0083]

@kemar207 so how should we interpret the constitution? If you interpret one way, one side wins and one side loses. The law will never be applied equally to all. period. So how would you do it? Interpret it the way you want and screw any other way?

[kemar207]

@DStrike0083 No. Interpreting it the way you want is what most judges do and that's why there are screwy judgements that all contradict each other floating around. The whole premise of law is that similar cases should be decided in similar ways through the application of legal principles. In reality, it all depends on your judge. Some judges convict everybody. Some judges hardly convict anybody at all. Different people get treated differently depending on their judges. That is injustice.

[DStrike0083]

@kemar207 so we should stop judicial discretion? Btw most cases are determined by juries. Judges are for appellate courts and many do not overturn juries. So blame them

[hawkeyery14]

Thankfully, the Constitution is silent on most matters facing the American public. This allows the American public the ability to mold the law to their circumstances. It is only (or should be) a rare occasion where the Supreme Court has to step in because a law infringes on one of the few rights that the Constitution specifically protects.

[Tsnore]

This man's jowls should be surgically removed and displayed at the Smithsonian.

[straken9k1]

Scalia = boss

[SharksKid]

His words apply far beyond courts. It's very easy to be an armchair philosopher and arrogantly reject or support a one-line holding announced on CNN or wherever. It's a little more challenging to actually exert your mind to understand the complex reasoning behind it all.

[NaomiChambers]

this is wrong

one CAN judge judges

[dak879]

As much as I disagree with the man sometimes, he is undeniably brilliant, and I have a certain level of respect for one who sticks so strictly to his beliefs as to the judicial role in our system.

[thechangeling613]

@dak879 The majority opinion also offered some magical thinking in its ruling when it dismissed any risk that corporations might exert undue influence over elections as it referred to corporations as just another kind of "association of citizens." Sadly, large corporations more often act like amoral, profit-driven robots -- not the kind of associations any reasonable person would want pouring millions (perhaps up to a billion) dollars into federal campaign advertising.

[dak879]

@thechangeling613 I don't recall offering any opinion or comment on that case, but I appreciate and understand your view

[iansquared3]

is it weird that i absolutely loved my high school AP gov class that i just finished?

[H1TMANactual]

@iansquared3 hmmm I remember having the same feeling

[FRSFreeState]

As a liberal I rarely agree with Justice Scalia but I have a lot of respect for him. In the way he goes about making his legal decisions. He always makes a credible case for what he believes.

[bornthug213]

I actually agree with him here. The sky must be falling!

[CBlargh]

-Hah!

-I actually agree with dirty Scalia to a certain extent. If they try to put words into the 2nd amendment that aren't there, they aren't doing their job. It says everyone has the right to bear arrms, and that means all arms including ICBM's. If they don't find this, the congress will never act to fix the problem.

-Where Mr. Scalia finds civil rights for corporations in the constitution I have no idea.

[charliebergy101239]

Mr. inJustice Scalie, together with his fellow inJustices: Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy have turned the U.S. Supreme Court into ONE BIG JOKE!

[exbronco1980]

i'm not a scalia fan, but he actually makes a good point here.

[Zyworski]

Justice Scalia is my favorite Justice from the conservative half of the bench. Judge Scalia is the closest thing we have to a strict constructionist, and I would prefer he lead the court rather than John Roberts.

[UtubeCliche]

brilliant man, even if I don't agree with him a few times

[Strega222]

Quick question.

Does Justice Scalia not believe in the power of Judicial review? Is it not the duty of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to nullify common laws that conflict with the Supreme Law of the Land?

[Lawguy2009]

@Strega222

Of course he does, and there have been many instances when J. Scalia, either writing for the majority, concurring, or in dissent, has expressed his opinion that a law at issue is unconstitutional. A law can be distasteful and yet pass constitutional muster...

[moninoff]

@Strega222 Of course Justice Scalia believes in Judicial Review. The point he is making is that if a foolish law exists (and it conforms with the Constitution), it is not the job of the courts to invalidate the foolish law simply because it is foolish. The people, through their elected representatives, have enacted that foolish law, and the people must live with the foolish results.

[centurion180ad]

BULLSHIT. This criminal WHORE of the mass murdering Debt Syndicate, IS A PUBLIC SERVANT. Every American is free to condemn this bastard if they so desire, and they sure as Hell ought to. This Whore ought to be stripped of his office for flagrant dereliction of duty, and violation of his oath of office.

[anikinippon]

Well said

[Parent33w]

Nice video, but he can't argue the issue of constitutionality doesn't depend on the make-up of the court; so what does that mean? I respect the Justices of the Supreme Court as much as I respect anyone, but that doesn't mean people are incapable of seeing the corruption, atrocities, and inequality in the system either. What the "people" decided? He's been hanging with Marion too much maybe; that is just hilarious. He's a quasi-politician at best, they all are, and he knows money matters; period.

[HUMANTORCH38]

wow i have to agree

[the1yage]

What was that about "faux judicial modesty"? This line about being compelled to terrible decisions makes my laugh 'til I cry. I think he's sincere about this to some degree, as his canons of construction don't always lead to a conservative result. But for God's sake, they usualy do! Funny how that is.

[wrightlawnv]

I disagree, somewhat, with Justice Scalia's view about following the law even if the results are absurd. That is not justice. Following black letter law can result in horrendous miscarriages of justice!

[luc59457]

I agree.

[hyperseauton]

Wow, that really IS honest.

"Hey, look, we produce garbage laws based on a garbage document written by some hack framers 220 years ago. We don't have to deal like with problems of higher moral philosophy. It's a job, like any other job...like baking pizza and serving spaghettis, mammamia."

OK, I sterotypified there towards the end but wow: it is really out in the open that he does not want to alter the system for the better.

[Qboy316]

@hyperseauton but he doesn't want to alter the system for the worse either. judges should not take sides, but rather rule on what law has been adopted...

[CountArtha]

@hyperseauton Be careful what you wish for. For every activist judge who changes the law "for the better," there's another who will change it for the worse.

[Rarez2]

Agreed.

[paxcoder]

End software patents, please? Can you?

It'd be most helpful for all if you could :-)

[jcr254]

I wish more people would watch this instead of inane videos of dogs biting people. Perhaps people would stop bitching about our government if they actually knew how it operated.

[centurion180ad]

@jcr254 The nest of Whores & Pimps in Washington DC does not operate anywhere near the way you think they do. It is a WHOREHOUSE, doing nasty unspeakables for BANKERS. It is a mass murdering Debt Syndicate.

[MalignantRacist]

Judges on the United States supreme court are accountable to no one. They are appointed for life.

[MalignantRacist]

It is pretty strange to have any office in government elected for an entire lifetime tenure. Scalia is king of his seat on the bench and soon the same will be so for random latina female from the bronx. Sotomayor will not be able to changed fixed radical liberal views and anarchy will vastly increase in supreme court decisions. The bronx has got to be one of the largest poverty/crime/gambling hubs in the USA

[AboveAllNations]

Can you imagine the Justices in Brown v. Board (1956) thinking like Scalia?

"Wow, I feel really sorry for these poor black school children, but the Framers of the 14th Amendment had segregated schools, and Plessy v. Ferguson is a rock-solid precedent. Garbage in, garbage out!"

What Scalia doesn't acknowledge is that 1) the Constitution is exceedingly vague, 2) its meaning was meant to change over time, and 3) judges SHOULD stand up for marginalized groups shut out of the political process.

[ambigera]

You are definitely right, part of having a judiciary is correcting the mistakes of stupid but popular policies. This is probably the first time a youtube comment changed my mind on something.

[BOOLsheet]

1. true it is; no doubt about that. but some things are quite clear still.

2. that does NOT follow from number one. nowhere did the framers ever specify that the constitution (which is a law) a was meant to change) was meant to change its answers according to the times even though it is vague.

3. this is a moral statement and it has nothing to do with procedural law (the enforcing of already adopted laws).

[AboveAllNations]

The irony of the "originalist" methodology is that it fails it own historical inquiry; the Framers DID intend for the Constitution to change.

Evidence? Edmund Randolph's statement at the Philadelphia Convention Committee of Detail (1787):

"In the draught of a fundamental constitution... [we ought to] insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events."

[joejohnson043]

who is supposed to change it? Life appointed judges unaccountable to the people, or Congress & President who are elected? Who wrote, signed, and ratified the Constitution... judges? They judge within the framework of the law.... not make it up as they see fit, that is for the elected officials; it works well if libs would quit cheating.

[keithlogan365]

Nothing in Randolph's statement contradicts the origionalist position.

[AboveAllNations]

The Supreme Court does take the political power of certain groups into account in analyzing the constitutionality of State and Congressional legislation under the Equal Protection clause.

Where "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities" - racial minorities, religious minorities, women, or, more controversially, gays & lesbians - motivate some legislation, the Supreme Court "may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." - Footnote 4, US v. Carolene Products (1938)

[CountArtha]

The Constitution was MEANT to be changed by elected representatives serving finite terms, not by five life-tenured judges. Judges should interpret the law AS IT IS WRITTEN and leave the social justice to the Congress.

[sealhunta]

lol, they keep overturning the "social justice" that congresses passes

[etsneroj]

The difference between Plessy and Brown is exactly what you said from Holmes quote: experience. What is "equal"? It was not obvious at first. But by the 50's it was clear that "separate but equal" was not equal. So, the law changed. The system worked. Many originalists see it this way.

[AboveAllNations]

What you just described is not "originalism." The idea that the meaning of the world "equal" can change over time is the essence of a living constitution, the exact opposite of a rigid adherence to "original intent."

It is clear, by the way, that the Framers of the 14th A. did NOT intend to desegregate public schools. Even Northern schools in the 1860s were segregated. Many of the Justices were going to uphold segregation b/c of that clear "original intent" before they finally ignored it.

[AboveAllNations]

Here's another example of our "living constitution." The Court has held that the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment" changes with our society's "evolving standards of decency." (Trop v. Dulles).

So while the Founding Fathers executed teenagers & children, executed the mentally retarded, and executed people for rape (or other crimes lesser than murder), our living constitution prohibits those kinds of executions. Should we have needed a constitutional amendment to make that clear? No.

[etsneroj]

I don't get your point on this one. Who said we need and amd to clarify the 8th amd? The text is vague and open to different interpretations. It's the Court's job to interpret it. They've adopted a "living constitution" approach to it, which Scalia rejects, but that doesn't mean he's wrong; he just failed to persuade a majority of the other justices.

[BOOLsheet]

can we see more of this somewhere

[misterkleen]

i wish our justice system actually worked like this.

[AboveAllNations]

If our judicial system actually worked like Justice Scalia advocates, we wouldn't have:

1) desegregated public schools, 2) a warrant requirement for home searches, 3) the Miranda warnings, 4) a constitutional right to privacy, and 5) States wouldn't have to respect the Bill of Rights ("Congress shall pass no law...").

Thank goodness we DO have an "activist" Supreme Court willing to depart from precedent and original intent to "make" a better Constitution that fits our modern society.

[BOOLsheet]

its not the job of judges to decide what is good law and what is bad law. in the system the people agreed to, the legislature makes those decisions, not the court. unless you think having a law degree somehow means that you know more about morality and should be able to make these decisions for society.

[AboveAllNations]

It is the job of judges to differentiate good law from bad, and, according to the Framers, judges ARE supposed to "know more about morality" than others.

From Federalist # 78:

"[The Law] ...must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge... Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges... [and fewer still] who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge."

[AboveAllNations]

Given the shades of gray, judges DO have the power to "make" better law. Supreme Court Justices have "made law" in interpreting what "due process" means, or what constitutes an "unreasonable search or seizure" or "cruel and unusual punishment." Common law judges "made law" going back centuries before the United States was even founded.

Judges are not robots or baseball umpires. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed, "the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

[joejohnson043]

Your statement is wrong! He is bound to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in his statement here. Thus, the states must respect the Bill of Rights, because they ratified the constitution and are subject to it. When Chicago loses its gun ban case it will be for this very reason.The "activist" judge is a despot and guilty of treason. If we had a real Congress, those judges would be impeached, but since the Democrats like those types of judges to make laws they can't pass.....

[AboveAllNations]

The fact that some parts of the Bill of Rights (like the 1st Amendment, but not yet the 2nd) apply to the States is itself the product of liberal judicial activism. Read the text of the Amendments ("CONGRESS shall pass no law..."). The States originally ratified the Bill of Rights assuming that they would only apply to the fed govt!

It wasn't until the activist liberal SC judges "incorporated" those Amendments through the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause that States were bound by them.

[sealhunta]

yeah and the conservative majority on the court can easily overturn the incorporation doctrine if they wanted to

[djpelagic]

@joejohnson043 I must point out that your statement is incorrect. The Bill of Rights does not automatically apply to the states. This is handled under the doctrine of incorporation. Chicago lost its gun ban case because the Supreme Court determined that the "right to bear arms" is sufficiently fundamental such that the states must respect that right as well as the feds. You are wrong to say that the states, categorically, must respect the B of Rts. See the 3rd amendment & excessive fines clause

[joejohnson043]

@djpelagic just because something hasn't been implemented in all the court opinions yet doesn't mean I'm wrong. It is self evident that your protections as an American under the Bill of Rights, should protect you in the case of a tyrannical State (even though its usually the other way around). Have you heard the fed is suing Arizona because they want to arrest illegal aliens crossing their border? How is it THAT overreaches the FED, but a right guaranteed in the BILL OF RIGHTS does not?

[djpelagic]

@joejohnson043 I must point out that your statement is incorrect. The Bill of Rights does not automatically apply to the states. This is handled under the doctrine of incorporation. Chicago lost its gun ban case because the Supreme Court determined that the "right to bear arms" is sufficiently fundamental such that the states must respect that right as well as the feds. You are wrong to say that the states, categorically, must respect the B of Rts. See the 3rd amendment & excessive fines clause

[phoenixdef]

@joejohnson043 For you to use 'activist' judge in this context, you presume that strict originalism is the correct constitutional interpretation...

[homogeneousally]

I concur. Well stated.

[robert140602]

Good point.

Well made.