Justice Antonin Scalia | The Cambridge Union
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 08. 2012
- Date recorded: 09/03/2012
Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court judge, was born in New Jersey in 1936. He received his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University. Professor of Law at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago, and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University, Justice Scalia became Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the mid-Seventies. He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat in September 1986.
The most important legal thinker of the 20th century. I hope that one day, by the grace of God, we have more justices who are guided by rigorous principles and unmatched character. Never let originalism die.
Simply one of the greatest Supreme Court Justice.
...who had a sting in his tail. I felt sorry for the last questioner.
Justices...grammar
@Somewhere lost in the mists of time I recall just one statement our professor made during our first day, our first lecture at law school: "Law is all about words!"
@@rogerlephoque3704 Yes, and how we interpret them. I am a professional financial and legal translator, and oftentimes I have a hard time understanding what some lawyers mean, as their brief is so poorly written. Cf. The confirmation hearing of Mrs Barrett in which THE PEOPLE wants her adopt a MORAL attitude ........and could not tell severability from a whole in the ground.
@ Ah, so you're a translator of gobbledygook. And that's the hole truth and nothing but the truth...I have a personal motto that you should be aware of in the scheme of things: I avoid idiomatic English like the plague.
Smartest man I've ever heard speak on law and culture. God took him on His time and I mount the most feable defense ever that Scalia should have been kept for humanity. The LORD giveth, and the LORD taketh. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
God took him so that President Trump would be elected.
Please, as the Founders stated, relidion has little place in our jurisprudence.
One of the greatest legal minds ever to sit on the Supreme Court!!!
LOL, read some of his arguments and weep.
LMAO
Justice Scalia blessed us with his ability to discuss Constitutional Law and make it interesting and even enjoyable.
definitely interesting. most interesting as to how he explain is originalist BS and various conclusion from that. it's like fantasy.
@@joeldujsik fantasy is more inline with left woke fluidity BS. You should be thanking every conservative judge on the bench. If the left had its choice, they would not think twice about restricting words or opinions they don’t agree with. I am reminded how much I love America, our constitution and the freedoms we have hearing or reading opinions that differ from mine. I used to have beliefs similar to yours. Maybe one day you too will see the light. 🇺🇸
Care to get specific? Seems like he made some pretty good points.
The reason originalism or textualism works best is because the clauses and amendments of the Constitution work best when applied to the things they were intended to apply to.
Two momentous events occurred in Trenton: Gen. George Washington's victory and the birth of Antonin Scalia.
B8
Yes yes
I was born and raised in trenton
How about the birth of Samuel Alito?
La la la la
He's my role model and idol. The father of originalism. God rest his soul.
The final questioner managed to annoy the Justice and he was uncompromising in his putdown. Difficult to imagine a Supreme Court Justice from the UK being so forthright in words and tone.
The answer to the last question is perfectly articulated. What is the point exactly in arguing that people then didn't mean what it means now? What they asked isn't a question, it's a backhanded statement attempting to morally posture in front of a crowd.
What a burn on the UN that was, that he said it was OK for it to virtue signal because of it's lack of accountability, and relevance.
His point also reflects the use of force required in providing rule of law.
I hear deference to the gravity that enforcement includes those costs every utilitarian proposition includes in their cost-benefit analysis.
The UN obviously doesn't pay for enforcement (the US primarily does if anyone) but they don't have to pay the price for their beliefs. The errors of enforcement. Even if the UN promoted socialism -- they'd never endure the accountability for poor choices, unfortunate implementation, or how competing laws interact with other make believe laws as they collide with the conflicts of competing priorities.
(I wish I knew how to say that more parsimoniously).
It’s just like a prophet telling what is to come. What a brilliant mind.
Can't they manage a better camera angle??
The cameraman is very tall.
Be thankful, certain coutries. This Man is part of the reason why you do what you do. And why your countries still exist.
Usually didn’t agree with Scalia but love his ability to communicate his ideas!!
you can read this speech in his book Scalia Speaks, p260 it is not word for word as he modifies in the moment but very close
Noted. Thanks for the information ℹ️ 😎
Such a loss, ..."comma, that's an Accusative Absolute, I believe..." Mensch!
Yeah, I'd never even heard that phrase.
My hero! Justice Scalia!
Here here! I second that!
He is funny indeed and sometimes very good. As in POWs in a war without end in that Fribourg speech that should be online too. A real human being.
If we strictly speaking of the laws of the constitutions, the Justice Scalia is absolutely correct and I believe this is what the constitutions for. If we have our country's constitutions, but not recognize or not follow up, why do we need it there? If a country without the constitutions, it's either the dictatorship, Terrorism or a tribe. Moreover, as the supreme Court judges, their duties are standing firmly by the laws of our own country's principles of the constitutions and interpret the case of the laws by our own constitutions only, not by public opinions, foreign countries' culture or laws, or by majority or minorities's hobbies or views, or by assuming of any reasons. It should only by America's laws of the constitutions. Because America's constitutions represents America's unique Symptoms and foundations of the Capitalism system of the natures of the liberty and entrepreneurship systems and guaranteed by our own constitutions to remain, protect and defend our country's constitutions which means that America's foundation of the Capitalism system of the liberty and entrepreneurship systems must be protected without choice and exception. Because our constitutions is our foundations of the laws for people and Government to follow. Our own country's constitutions are protective to our country's foundation, spirit symbolism of the Capitalism system of the natures of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and constitutions itself. Without the constitutions boundaries, America's foundation can be faded or eliminated, even be disappeared forever. This is why if we love America with America's patriotism and principles of America's foundation, we must strictly follow up our own constitutions to stand up and defend our country's constitutions not other ways around. Moreover over, in America, normally you can get the citizenship through 3 to 5 years and will be able to vote after that immediately. It doesn't mean anyone can recognize America's exceptionalism of the Capitalism system of the natures of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and constitutions shortly within a few years of living. Mostly their own culture and concept will still dramatically influenced. This is why America's patriotism and principles of the America's foundation of the Capitalism system of the natures of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and constitutions are extremely important to Americans. This is also why people come here. This is also why America accept immigrants to be here. However, America's successful exceptionalism through their own solid foundation and constitutions should supersedes anything else and never allowed to be faded or even eliminated or replaced by any other ideologies or other countries. Because this is the United States of America and its symbolism of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and the rules of the laws of the constitutions. Also any law abiding citizens' s privacies must be protected by law, I agree what Justice Scalia said.
Other than my father in heaven and my biological father, this man has my utmost admiration.
by so few
Excellent.
RIP to the honorable A. Scalia
No one in government is supposed to run the economy whether a Congressman, a group of Congressmen, a bunch of bureaucrats. This is supposed to be a free market private sector economy.
The man has talent. He may do well.
Who is the moderator?
I don't know but my god is he annoying.
Glad the scotus recently struck down the delegation of power to the EPA, finally addressing the issue of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power by Congress
Who sits on the throne?
I believe scientific community had the proof that it was possible for technician to talk to the chilren soul before even 6 week that if the child want to be born or not with entangled blood and thoughts synchronization
Judge judy spoke here
Enlightened despots then?
Rule of the philosopher kings with life tenure, in other words.
What you'd 'rather' have is really (a) an abdication of personal responsibility and democratic duty; (b) violation of the separation of powers and therefore rule of law.
What strikes you as a good idea now becomes a terrible one when reality produces judges who are not always benign or wise.
He is missed. One of the best to do it.
i dont miss him
The last question exposed the main weakness of originalism.
How so?
Not so. Originalism focuses on the original public meaning of the Constitution as a whole, which includes every duly ratified Amendment.
Any words which contradict the meaning of Amendments 13 through 15 (and 19) as understood by those who ratified them are merely relics which may warrant debate, but bear no relevance to the law of the land.
I don’t think one could formulate a lazier argument than “‘We the people’ didn’t really mean ‘the people,’” insofar as this topic is concerned.
@@stillill586 ridiculous. originalism is just the idea that laws belong in the hands of the legislature, the executive, the people, not any judge nor what they think society at large thinks. As our country grew and matured, we considered more and more people as a part of our democracy. In regards to the young mans point, "we the people" did mean just the rich white male land owners at the time, but this was not acceptable to the american citizens at the time. BOTH of George Washingtons elections had NO input of ANY individual except for the members of the state legislatures. However, slowly, over time, democracy grew, and we could directly vote for our delegates, and eventually senators. "we" the people decided that we WANTED a more democratic government, and a more legitimate government asfar as the social contract is concerned. what were they supposed to do? revolt that the constitution didnt reflect future democratic principles and is therfore invalid?
I dont think enough people realize this; while great Britain invented most of what is considered law that we still practice to this day, AMERICA invented the modern republic and by extension social contract and democracy. EVERYTHING was a improvement for the people because the previous system was a monarchy.
Brilliant talk with rather a sour end, the last question was too provocative and pedantic, we are an imperfect species, so we should not expect that we can produce perfect deeds from first try!
Am I the only one annoyed by the kid that’s “moderating”? He’s hovering right over Scalia’s shoulders. Scalia can barely stand behind the podium to answer a question because that kid wants to be seen beside him so bad.
Yeah, but come on. He was just a kid and Justice Scalia was that awesome.
Absolutely.
@@acctsys A kid? What are you talking about. He's a man and he is out of his depth.
@@RayCathode100 IMO, the young man getting giddy about the justice is OK. Not classy, but it's OK. Not a big deal.
Justice Scalia Doctorate Of Law
Well, that was a lot of talky talk.
If all about abortion and death penalty then could children had the right not to be borned in the first place because if two wrong make a right?
Tymeline..
Then maybe we should just go back to Aristocracy If the people are just too dumb to make laws for their own society?
Scalia's argument is that certain judges have taken on the role of aristocrats and he thinks that democracy is better.
Thank you🙏
I will watch this later
Canada, I have evidence that you looted my house. Probably my rental too. And witnesses.
RIP
Sharing own opinion not i am in any wins scholarship or funds govt. I think the law is to understand the both relegion and the human well being not what people think the rekegion is about what we have for relegious of self beleif in life. If the law is served there a relegion as well not meant any relegious about sexuallity to misunderstood but the law it is.
The rules is filled with all no lawyers who handling clients or anyone in the party of participating in the court.
They are duty of all the jurors who cant missed out any words to look on every piece of its deacribing and explaining about the law of justice the guman being who has speaks for self law and express it freely how it does exist being himan rather be torn apart of any people who cant be there after to build back the high wall for country and for what people can walk on freely like the longest bridges with the right of law cant easily build up latest in history like any word people are uses it just an expression.
The
It's the old "dead constitution" argument.
The difficulty with the argument re Art 8 is that those drafting it expressly placed for judicial interpretation the question of what is necessary in a democratic society.
The video is about Article 8 of a European declaration. That's where the "right to privacy" idea comes from, and why "is there a Constitutional right to privacy" is always a loaded gotcha zinger in judicial confirmation hearings. (Because the answer is a factual No, but the politicians want the news to say "Garland doesn't believe in the right to privacy!", so it's a nuclear option that everyone takes.)
One note, he does eventually mention the 8th Amendment, which is Cruel and Unusual Punishment, which is different from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The Constitution only has 7 Articles.)
And you don't see any problem with placing such a broad exception to the right to privacy as:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Each of those exceptions can be interpreted a million ways by a thousand different judges. Whose morals? What is freedom? What is considered a "public safety" concern?
Some places in Europe consider American-style free speech "immoral" and not about "freedom" and a threat to "public safety" and a "crime" in some cases. The Europeans have stupid forms of government that are barely constrained by any structural document like the constitution. Scalia talks about the idiocy of their systems in various speeches, although he doesn't call them idiotic outright. its implied.
@@nonya7954 different countries across Europe have a different idea of free speech? Yes, they (we) do. That really ought not to be surprising.
If you want to engage in a critique of Art.8, do so seriously. First of all, recognise that Art.10 is also part of the ECHR, and that it provides good protection for freedom of speech. Secondly, recognise that a restriction on free speech isn't fine just because it's said to be for one of those reasons. It must be "necessary in a democratic society" - a high hurdle. It must also be "in accordance with law" - there must be a rule of law that allows the interference, that rule mustn't be arbitrary.
And whilst the terms you cite could be interpreted in different ways, so could any legal document. We don't have a thousand judges interpreting them - we have the European Court of Human Rights.
I met Antonin Scalia a couple of times. Once, I spent quite a long time chatting with him. A charming man, but rather blinkered when it comes to learning from the rest of the legal world, including the common law world where the constitution has its roots.
A great guy n a wonderful mind...reminds me of a few tutors of mind. I do however disagree with his comparisons with European n American jurisprudence...they both have very different ideological entomology. A written constitution must be a living breathing entity otherwise what is the point u end up being stuck at the point it was created ie 1779. Thats why America has such an issue but is also the reason for its exceptionism.
“Entomology”??
David, perhaps true originalism is impossible regarding the constitution and jurisprudence. But, Scalia has a viewpoint that is pretty close to mine and in his video, he exposed the failure of the "fourth branch" of government. The administrative state. Scalia is also correct in his alarm about reliance upon the judge as the moral arbitrator; he is also correct about the over reliance on experts. Yes, European jurisprudence and American jurisprudence is different though related.
@@charlesshankle3178 I agree but there has to be some form of the administrative element of all the branches. Judges, in my view, shouldn't be moral arbiters as this is beyond what they should be doing but there has to be an element of what is the starting position ie thinking beyond the judicial framework to understand, in particular the rights of men. There has to be some understanding which by default endures an element of interpretation as to what the phrases and meanings mean in the context of the law. The only way to do that is to fully understand those terms and reach a conclusion even if its one we don't agree with.
@@doodleesq I also agree that some seperate administrative functions are necessary. What concerns me most is what those functions are and how they are defined; the reasons are their growth and power can be really hard to contain and at some point, they can circumvent the constitution and, that is never acceptable. Second, I also worry about oversight and accountability of officials in charge and working for the adminstrative branches of state. Overall, I worry what belongs to the state should remain with the state and it should always serve the people and never encroach upon their liberties.
If they don’t want a constitution from 1779, the people should and can amend it. It is highly undemocratic for unelected judges to decide when to give new meaning to old words.
The people had a clear idea of what it meant, when they passed it. If you care, read the federalist papers, they go into great detail, explaining the constitution to the people.
Imagine that from our perspective: “we’re passing a law prohibiting xyz (like cruel and unusual punishment)”. But what xyz means is up to judges to decide any given decade.
THE BIBLE SAYS to perform an abortion to see if the wife has been faithful to the husband. Maybe that exception should be written into law??
European count of Human rights seems to be a joke!
Scalia has a deserved reputation, but he is intellectually much weaker than I'd hoped. If this presentation is an example of his intellectual prowess.
Maybe you'll achieve much more.
Julgar dar multas definitivas ações Todos mídias e Internet cort riscos acompanhado definirem Casa meu tio senador Brasil
D.M.C
The spotless path pathomorphologically guide because dime unfortunately strip inside a possible bladder. classy, tall elbow
The late justice, like his followers, does a bit of hand-waving when asked about the legitimacy of the original ratification (“join a revolution”). But earlier in this same event, he cites his belief in democracy as the underlying basis for originalism despite his awareness of how undemocratic the original ratification was.
He does not make a cohesive case that pursuing the original public meaning of an undemocratically ratified constitution is less democratic than a living constitution through judges appointed by democratically elected leaders. However imperfect modern democracy is, it’s drastically more legitimate than the election of the original framers and ratifiers, for whom more than half the population were ineligible to vote. Yet justice Scalia and his living disciples delegate to these illegitimate authors and ratifiers the supreme authority on whose rights should be excluded from unconditional protection.
With all due respect, your argument does not stand on firm ground due to the following aspects.
Firstly, as every reasonable argument, this one has to be guided by a general principle, otherwise it is purely arbitrary. So the only principle I see in your argument is that the legitimacy of laws is not given if the country was founded “illegally”. However, you can only believe in this principle if you are an anarchist. Why? Because nearly every country on earth was founded this way. So if you apply your standard that means that nearly no current law exists which is legitimate (even if it was passed far after the ratification of the constitution since it was passed under the principles of the constitution). The consequence of illegitimacy is obviously that one does not have to obey.
Secondly, I unfortunately also have to challenge the thought of illegitimacy. Among others, the legitimacy of a country is always defined by the recognition of the international fold. This also explains while the US today is a recognized state, while the IS is not (although fulfilling other criteria).
Men list their prejudices and call it thinking. (Voltaire?). Justice Scalia is such a man. He would be better off rolling the dice as the Judge in "Gargantua and Pantagruel" Rabelais
how is it listing his prejudices? he's only asking there to be an objective basis for the application of passed law. Under the living constitutionalist, there is no objective basis, you have to defer to the popular opinion on how a past law should be interpreted and which would mean that you would have to have a convention on all law each time a shift in public opinion is accurately defined.
You are a complete MORON...… You, I suppose have no prejudices, you are a complete self delusional fool.
@Liberty AboveAllElse Scalia was a Catholic Creep who believed in the devil, let religion rule his life and jurisprudence.
As a Homophobe he let his idiocy reign on the court.
Check his dissents. He was a justice who let his Oxymoronic attitude come through in as much as he could.
I did not know Sam Ash employed legal scholars in their stores.
@@stevehollahan3533 Then cite a specific passage of a specific case. Oh wait you can't?
tiring of hearing his BS.
How come then the 2nd Amendment is not interpreted according to the context of the time it was written Tony? Militias necessary to protect people from outside forces as they had been used in fighting the Hessians and British of the 18th century(?), not gangster-minded "folk" wielding automatic or excuse me semi-automatic weapons in America and every US household able to store an arsenal. This guy is annoying and dangerous and we should never forget he was a prominent player who gave us Dubya by fiat in 2000 in a supposed democracy - the USA - whose ruling was then disallowed by SCOTUS for any American court from ever using it as a legal precedent.
Our founding fathers wanted us to be armed to defend us from a tyrannical government.
Scalia's rulings on the Second Amendment confirm that he is just as intellectually dishonest as any other justice who has legislated from the bench. Those rulings also confirm that Scalia is incapable of basic reading comprehension when it comes to the English language.
hnobody And the majority of The Justices who agreed with Justice Scalia are also wrong? But you're right? Sweet, then I guess we can ban abortion. Fuck what the Supreme Court says.
martthesling The SCOTUS decisions on abortion are almost as wrong as its opinions regarding the Second Amendment. In other words, yes, the SCOTUS legislated from the bench in its abortion decisions just as much as it did in its Second Amendment decisions. The SCOTUS has been nothing more than an unauthorized legislative branch of government since the turn of the 19th century.
A justices job is to apply the law, not create nor add into it, if you want change, we have a way for that, through legislature, if you want to ban all guns, you have a means to that, through amending the constitution.
smart man obviously....but his worship of "originality" is lacking. This constitution he heralds in its original form was constructed when human beings where used as slaves and treated as such. So his clamoring for respect of the original text of the constitution at a time when said text was immersed in racism, and behavior among Americans was deeply seeped in hatred and viciousness towards non whites (esp Black Africans), is incorrect I believe. Yes, judges should NOT make law but their rulings set precedent that's obeyed and enforced as Law. Plus Scalia contradicts himself when he agrees with both the majority and the dissent in Plessy v Ferg, AND agrees with Brown v Board. He recognizes the ambiguity in the law that advocates "separate but equal" which allows him side with the majority in Brown but then says the text should remain in its original form. I think he sort of abdicates his "JOB" as a jurist when he tries to divorce himself from the societal ramifications of court decisions.
You are committing a genetic fallacy and also misunderstanding the role of a Supreme Court Justice.
Originalism generally speaks toward deciphering the intent and principles of the people who wrote the constitution. In so doing, they are deciphering what laws the state is allowed to make and what laws the state cannot make. It’s not a religious document where one should choose each phrase, like “we the people”, and mine for some moral significance. And under your view, if finding none or an appalling one, then discount the whole document? No. The constitution is merely a framework on the laws a government may make.
And amendments are allowed! Amendments happen when we want to broaden or specified or impute certain rights to a discreet minority. The Bill of Rights is small, only 10 items. Most of our constitution is in the amendments.
Justice Scalia‘s job is to try to determine what the state can do. Can it make laws regulating things or can it not. To suggest that because the founders had compromising moral opinions means that they can’t limit the federal government doesn’t make any sense. The constitution isn’t a list of things that the government gets to do. It’s a limitation to people who might have questionable points of view. It was a limiting document that the founders imposed on themselves.That’s the whole point of it.
He didn't say he agrees with both the dissent and majority in Plessy. The conversation just went over your head because you don't understand it.