Lecture - Justice Antonin Scalia
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 09. 2013
- Lecture with Justice Antonin Scalia "Is Capitalism or Socialism More Conducive to Christian Virtue?" given Friday, September 6, 2013 at The Lanier Theological Library in Houston, TX.
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
As the longest-serving justice currently on the court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the court's conservative wing.
Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey, but grew up in New York City. He attended
Georgetown University as an undergraduate and obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School. After spending six years in a Cleveland law firm, he became a law school professor. In the early 1970s, he served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, first at minor administrative agencies, and then as an assistant attorney general. He spent most of the Carter years teaching at the University of Chicago, where he became one of the first faculty advisors of the fledgling Federalist Society. In 1982, he was appointed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Ronald Reagan.
In 1986, Scalia was appointed by Reagan to the Supreme Court to fill the associate justice seat vacated when Justice William Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice. Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, and took his seat on September 26, 1986.
In his quarter-century on the court, Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation.
02/13/2016 RIP Justice Antonin Scalia will be missed by all.
for more info www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/
Antonin Scalia: an intellectual giant, Constitutional genius, and brilliant orator. He was truly one of a kind. His legacy will remain. May he rest in peace.
1981lashlarue Amen to that.
That is why the left had to kill him when he went to Texas. Those who accept the claim that he committed suicide by holding a pillow over his head, are amongst the dumbest turds on this Earth.
@@jimmiller8389 I never heard anyone claim he committed suicide.
Yes. Thank you for the comment. It gives me validation that sober, judicious, inquiring individuals still walk among us. Thank you
I am not American, and I am not even living in the US. But the more I learn about the history of USA and the more I have learnt from intellectual giants like Scalia, Friedman, Sowell, the more I wish the world, epsecially China will learn all this. I am sure that if Confucius lived today he would also be impressed.
thank you
24:30 - "The transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude."
24:30
it went from voluntary charity via individual altruism to forcing altruism via from each according to his ability to each according to his need. I.E. marxism
It is very simple to me…..i love people that challenge my thought …….and make me think…….Justice Scalia always made me think .
This might be my favorite of his lectures. Absolutely brilliant.
Justice Scalia admitted he had given this lecture previously at the Vatican. When invited to The Lanier Theological Library he thought it appropriate for our audience as well.
Well, hearing Scalia speak here, I again realize what we have lost in our Supreme Court. I particularly like his comment that the Constitution is not a morphing Constitution. Today, sadly, so many efforts are made to change it and change its effectiveness.
4:15 "you may be a lawyer but this is not a courtroom"
Imagine this instead: "If this is a courtroom, I'm not the judge" ;-)
amen
The debate between defenders of the systems we call "capitalism" or "socialism" is very significantly a debate over the balance between human rights and property rights. In my view, the set of principles that best achieves this balance is "cooperative individualism," securing and protecting individual liberty within a cooperative institutional framework. As John Locke observed, the challenge is to protect the exercise of liberty from the exercise of licence. On the subject of criminal licence there is a high degree of consensus regarding prevention and remedy. On the subject of economic licence our systems of law and taxation are far less effective in the prevention of monopoly privilege. On this important subject, I recommend to anyone who desires to explore the issue deeply, the 1900 book "Democracy versus Socialism" by Max Hirsch.
did the homie really open the night with a prayer? goddamn, respect.
*God Bless Your Soul Nino in The Heavens*
With far to many "Queens" on the Supreme Court, it is good to see the "Rook" doing what he does best: interpreting the law with impartiality and reason. In an age when judicial activism has reached an unprecedented level, thank you Justice Scalia for your restraint and deference for our democratic process.
***** That stung a little, did it? How should one classify the jurisprudence of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan? "Incorporation Plus" doesn't seem to work when you don't incorporate the 1st (sons of confederate war veterans v Texas, or the 2nd (Heller).
***** the theories of "incorporation" deal with the 14th amendement incorporating the protections in the 1st eight amendments to the States (as they used to just be held to federal government). Harlan in Hurtado... Palko... etc.
LOL I thought you were familiar with this... Guess not.
***** sorry, I assumed that you had some knowledge of the law. My mistake
***** In re cases in which the 14th incorporated the 1st to be held to the states:
Everson vs Board of Ed- establishment of religion.
Cantwell vs Connecticut- free exercise
Gitlow v New York- freedom of speech
Near vs Minnesota- freedom of press
Dejong vs Oregon- freedom of assembly
Edwards v South Carolina-right to petition for redress of grievances
There's the support for my claim. Now it's your turn to provide support for your claim that: "the first wasn't incorporated by the 14th." Good luck:)
***** Yes I know what the 1st amendment says within the context of "congress shall make no law", but this became moot with the adoption of the 14th's "priviledges and immunities" clause didn't it?
I never said anything about "fundamental fairness" did I? did Scalia? (try reading "a matter of interpretation" you'd be surprised at how much you'd agree w/ Scalia)
Slavery was not "upheld until it was determined to be unconstitutional". We fought a war, the south lost, and amended the constitution. This was done through force not SC decree. Didn't have anything to do with Dredd Scott as that was about substanitive due process ie whether the property rights of slaveholders was still valid when they left the slave states.
Though I would agree that too often judges impart their own conception into the constitution, which Justice could be said to do this less than Jus Scalia? Ginsburg? Sotomayor? Breyer? Kagan? Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth...
I wonder what growing up with Justice Scalia as your father would of been like? I don't think I would ever get bored listening to him talk 😂
The Right, Right, Right!!! Really miss him..Pretty sure it was a good day for Father getting to see him in person!
Gone too soon for my liking but the Lord has never asked my opinion! Great man, husband, and grandfather. Kicked a little bootie on the Court many times. No one quite like him on the Court yet!
true
An issue Justice Scalia did not address is the extent to which our systems of law and taxation result in the redistribution of income and wealth from its producers to non-producing "rentier" interests. This is the case being made by economist Joseph Stiglitz and others within the economics discipline.
I don't need CZcams's little blue box to tell me what to think about a video.
incredible
He is greatly missed!
Topic: Is the philosophy of the Left or of the Right more compatible with the public good?
No wonder Hitch was friends w/him. That was gr8 ^^
Thanks, yes, he will be missed
Great thinker
Yes
Sooo... the church would prefere the poor, the sick, the broken and the unemployed as miserable as possible, so that they could be spoonfed religion coated with that sweet sugar of charity? Conversion assisted by the felt debt towards your benefactors? That is enlightening to hear!
It is funny. Now in 2018 the issue of nationalist vs globalist is now at the forefront. But of course Justice Scalia was talking in 2013. Five years is an eternity in politics.... I wonder what he would now say.... if he had to give the same lecture.
I certainly admired his judicial philosophy which an entirely different topic.
I think he had mentioned this lecture was presented by him at the Vatican years before. he had reworked it some for the present audience but it was something he had given considerable thought to. yes he was brilliant. I liked that it cut through the false characterization that was often said of him by his opponents. He is certainly to be missed.
where's the studio
I am not getting your references each time you post
I like this guy n have a lot of respect for him n his duty. I believe, as he concluded that the State has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. Its enshrined in the First Amendment. No system is entirely faultless n no system is entirely enduring...it moves and changes with the views of the many against the few, and the few against the many and of the 1. Jesus didn't teach anything except that institutions and people ca n are corrupt but they are also good. Above all love your enemy n neighbour as u love yourself. As Scalia said its being very careful about words, and understand them well. N then use them in their appropriate manner. Blessed be.
40 minutes in. Scalia says they never talk about the basic philosophy or the fundamentals of their beliefs of how the constitution is meant to operate. And he it seems that he doesn't think he could possibly change the opinions his colleagues because they have had their beliefs for 30 years he says.
Well, I disagree, I think he could change the philosophy of others and I think they should at some point discuss this idea of fundamental philosophical beliefs because through hatching that out maybe we could reach some deep truth about human beings and ego. Scalia in my opinion has the right philosophy as it clearly acknowledges the human ego and it detriment to us. I think the reason why there is hesitation to have such a discussion is because it might actually hit some real emotional nerves. Philosophy is hard because it is tied up with our pyschology which has been shaped through many facets and some with deep scares. To have such a discussion i can easily see how it might push some over bounds. However, I believe its incumbent upon such members of the court to have work through such philosophies that are tied down to our core being and crad away the junk that is just deep wounds and bad judgment in order to make decisions that are free from ill begotten philosophies tied to not thought through experiences.
I loved Scalia when I was a law student and continue to as a lawyer - along with everything he represents in the law. I do not however agree with the donor/recipient paradigm he postulates given it assumes the equality of each subject and ignores the obvious benefits redistribution bestows on the collective wellbeing of society - a society in which they both live, including vulnerable members of their family or community. It's a 1970s Robert Nozick vs John Rawls sociological argument - clearly his vintage and steadfastly wedded to the Nozick camp. I think Christian values do have some prominence within that debate and the example postulated by his Honour was but one attempt to reconcile his own staunch Christianity with his intellectual dedication to the Nozick camp, despite the sharpness it translates to in practice across society.
Since when is power a cardinal sin?
The end is where scalia loses me, instead of saying stare decesis has no constitutional basis, however its a maxim of common law used by the courts to ensure uniformity, he makes up stuff like the people he disagrees with
your comment lost me. to help others Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.
You are missed.
That was an Irish accent, not a Scottish one.
"In these early years of the 21st Century, few have been urging a return to authoritarianism, vigorous nationalism, or traditionalism." Wow. 2013; good times.
hello to the lets just say you're a big boy
Although I don't think that socialism is necessarily conducive to Christian virtue, I disagree with Scalia's reason for concluding the same. Specifically, people's expressed reluctance to financially assist others due to their proverbial "tax dollars being already given to social welfare programs" may reflect their reaction to social safety net programs; but I'm not sure that I would blame the programs, rather than the reactions themselves: assistance to the poor, including public provisions for necessities, do not require a resulting absence from private charity. Indeed, to the extent that socialism, which I agree is not necessarily Christian, attempts to provide for such things, it cannot be said to have successfully eradicated poverty. Accordingly, if poverty persists, and as Christians, we understand that it is our job to help others, would we not do as much simply because of a disagreement we have with a form of government that attempts to do it, but fails? I understand Scalia is not saying that such should be the reaction; rather, he is saying that is what seems to be the reaction. But to say that socialism is not necessarily more conducive to Christian virtue on the basis of how people react to it, seems to blame it for the people's reactions to it. Moreover, although I don't know that I agree with every program supposedly derived from socialism, or even socialism itself, disagreeing with it does not obligate an objection that is even less conducive to Christian virtue (i.e., abstaining from helping as a form of objecting to a type of government). Nor would I blame the type of government for my reaction (i.e., my failure to help), which would ironically, not only put the onus of my conduct on the government, it would also be remarkably analogous to the reason people object to social safety net programs: you're holding the government responsible for the actions of the people.
look at Thomas Sankara videos.
When he accuses "the media" of not using terms like "left-wing extremist", I suppose he thinks Fox News and other major conservative media don't count as media?
The majority is left wing.
+Chris Channer Of media? LOL NIGGA WAT
KarstenOkk oh great. someone with ideas
***** ayyyyy lmao
Fox new is the only republican mainstream media outlet, but its not conservative. Meanwhile there are dozens of liberal and democratic party controlled mainstream media outlets.
To see the state of American judiciary see case number 1:19-CV-5388 in northern district of Georgia. In this case, I have sued district judge Thomas Thrash, judges of court of appeals of eleventh circuit, supreme court and court of appeals of Georgia and some federal officers. The accused judges and officers were directly involved in legitimizing a fraudulent divorce action between two Indian citizens who were residing in India and had no bona fide status in the US. Read it and be shocked!!
What a loss for the American people!
Up 😭😹💮
10 minutes before it starts.
he needs a trip to africa.
Why would he need to take a trip to that collection of shit holes?