My Conversation with Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia is one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in modern times. He is a leader of the "originalist" school of thought that argues that the U.S. Constitution should be strictly interpreted. I recently spoke with him at the Court about the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 and his influence among other Justices on the Court.

Comments

[laocoon]

I found what Scalia said on 60 Minutes about the 8th Amendment to be embarrassing. He is entirely result oriented as shown by his comments in the Habeas case. I do not think a reasonable jurist would ever argue that the intent of the framers was to give more protection from cruel and unusual acts to those convicted of a crime than to those who are believed to have some information the government wants. How can he reconcile this approach with language of the amendment, the rest of the bill of rights giving right to trial and counsel, to not incriminate oneself or the clear limits on federal powers. He clearly is suggesting that the framers intended that there be virtually no limits on what the federal government can do to someone to obtain information so long as they are not being punished. He cant reconcile his view with the bill of rights without engaging in intellectual sleight of hand which is transparent. Scalia's Originalism = activism.

[truthynesslover]

If for no other reason the choice of the next supreme court judges the next president will have should be formost in everyones mind.We cant afford more scalias on the court!

[truthynesslover]

I thought the supreme court was supposed to make LEGAL judgments not worry about how the rest of the world.And why wasnt he worried about the fiasco in florida and how that looked to the word?

[jmad]

The irony is that conservatives demand control of the bedroom with no limits on the boardroom.
Liberals on the other hand want control of the boardroom with no limits in the bedroom.

[pbarba1969]

If anything good came out of these last 8 years its this. People now realize that this is what happens when elections are placed in the hands of the Supreme Court that discount the will of the people. The Supreme Court selected a President, the American people did not elect him.

Also, they should have a ballot system that is the national standard. You go into the booth, flip the switch for your candidate and pull the lever. No chads. No electronic terminals. Stick with the basics.

Democracy doesn't work if people lose faith in the voting system.....

[fishsandwichesr2good]

Typical liberal who can't think beyond the tip of his nose. Ok, flip a switch and then what happens? Does a monkey get poked in some fashion and crap accordingly to record the vote? You might think you have a point, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

[wally47]

The reason you can't understand the point is you are too stupid and drunk on republican kool-aid to think for yourself. Think you can find and possibly understand my point?

[deckard]

So Charlie, why didn't you follow up on the laughingstock comment by the justice and ask him if he believes that a baseball game should be called in the fifth inning rather than letting it play out on its own to the ninth inning? Because, you know it's better to be despised by the rest of the world than to be the laughingstock. It's better to make a decision quickly, than to let the process that's been in place for over two hundred years and get it right.

[elr50]

Scalia makes me angry and embarrassed to be Italian-American and American in general. The man is a (can't think of a bad enough word).
'

[Liberal2]

How about "conservative"?

People need to grasp that conservatism is the true political and social evil. Conservatism is the idea that control over others is good because conservatives are better than anyone else. See: Plato's "Philosopher Kings".

[rwe]

It was never a Bush v Gore decision... It was a ruling against the Fla Supremes trying to make up their own laws... Gore never ever won a single recount before or after (per every legit Libmsm recount)

[MajorKong]

"Beyond the substantive merits of the case, there are other indications that the Florida Supreme Court was not simply trying to ensure that Vice President Gore would win the election acting in a partisan fashion. On several occasions, the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the Vice President Gore on important issues. "

"No one, not even the most enthusiastic supporter of Governor Bush’s campaign, should feel entirely comfortable with the result in Bush v. Gore. If I am right about what the Supreme Court did, then the best that can be said is that the Court trumped the supposed lawlessness of the Florida Supreme Court with lawlessness of its own."

From The Vote by David A. Strauss

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html

[Lon]

It was a ruling that overruled the Florida Supreme Court interpretation of Florida law. This was done despite the fact that by any originalist reading of the constitution, the Supreme Court has no right to override the Florida Supreme Court on such matters.

There were multiple recounts based on different methods that the local councils might have opted for. Some favored Bush, some favored Gore. Anyone interested in legitimacy would have let the system play out. After all the councils has no basis for knowing what methods would favor which candidates. But the Republicans on the Supreme court did not want to risk having their candidate lose, so they cut the process short.

This is not a decision that is going to look better in the future. We do not applaud any of the games played in past elections (like the Adams/Jackson or the Hayes election) and future Americans are likely to be embarassed that the courts stepped into this one in such a partisan manner.

[paixa3]

I agree. For the USA Supreme Court to get involved in this matter was treasonous TO THE CITIZENS.

I wish you luck to have real justice sometime in the future.

[dutchgirl55]

You should study the facts...the real facts. An excellent book on the subjct is The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi ( a brilliant Italian-American, elr50! ) :-)

[AnnArky]

rwe: obviously living in a neo-con bubble.

Gore never won a single recount . . . because there weren't any. There were attempts and false starts always hampered by the Republicans, but there was never a single, legitimate recount.

The Republicans are to politics what Lyle Alzado was to football.

[arvay]

Scalia defined himself for all time with his dissent on Guantanamo.

With his statement that "we are at war with radical Islam" Justice Scalia defined himself as a shallow partisan rather than the deep-thinking, principled jurist he likes to play on TV. The phrase is right out of the Republican/Rove-ian playbook, is outside his judicial expertise or purview, and is a great example of trying to make the Constitution "relevant to the times" -- something he routinely condemns.

His Intellectual dishonesty will stink down through the history of our nation

[reason2008]

Arvay, just wait until we catch a terrorist and we have to let him go within 24 hours because there isn't sufficient evidence (yet) to hold him. I'm sure he'll stay in the US and not bolt for Iran or Syria never to be seen again.

These people are enemy combatants and the domestic rules of law cannot be applied.

All of the extreme left nuts think this will somehow be a slippery slope in the US if someone is arrested for murder. It's laughable.

These people were picked up on the BATTLEFIELD! This decision will cost American lives in the future. No rights of Americans were lost nor gained with this decision.

[arvay]

The Court very effectively answered this by stating that we don't switch the Constitution on and off to deal with emergencies. Criminals escape every so often because law enforcement blunders: the remedy isn't to give the cops absolute power.

The problem here is that this administration doesn't have the IQ to effectively deal with terrorism, so they want dictatorial powers. The answer from the Supreme Court is, effectively, "No, stupid."

You wrote: "These people are enemy combatants and the domestic rules of law cannot be applied."

The rules of international law, such as the geneva Convention, do apply, so the Court has ruled. And no one in America, even an illegal immigrant who commits a crime, can be denied habeas corpus. If they are subject to our laws, they are also entitled to our rights. This is really for our benefit as well as theirs. This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia.

When you say they were"picked up on the battlefield" you are declaring them a priori guilty. We've seen any number of cases where innocent people, even allied with us, have been railroaded. Are you saying we should punish the innocent as the price of catching the guilty?

I don't think the Founders would have used this language, but the rights we need to protect are designed to protect us from assholes in power, being their sphincteristic selves, arresting the wrong people and the arrested having no route for the innocent to defend themselves.

[dperino]

"If citizenship is now defined as having arbitrary application of rights and protections, the definition of what an enemy combatant is, becomes subject to the same discretion of courts, politicians and bureaucrats."

i don't recognize the constitution as being liberal or conservative. nor do i recognize, based on a their agendas, the constitution as being up to either interpretation.

"...since the enactment of the Patriot Act, the lines of “Due Process” no longer exist for anyone, who has the misfortune to be labelled an enemy combatant. In an era of unbridled government usurpation of reach and scope, is there any doubt that such a designation will soon apply to selective alleged crimes, committed on home ground, by rebellious citizens when it suits the ‘War of Terror’ on America."

if the so-called patriot act had been enacted 30 years ago and allowed (which will no doubt be) to be honed over a few decades, imagine what constitutional law would look like. how many more rights are you willing to sacrifice? i'm no liberal and this is not a liberal concept, nor is it a conservative one.

[zbig]

Actually reason2008, some of the defendants 'WERE NOT PICKED UP IN A BATTLEFIELD". They were arrested in an East European country supposedly for plotting to do some terrorist attack, they were found by that country's supreme court that there was not enough evidence to hold them, and right before they were released, the East European country gave them to the US military who whisked them to Gitmo, no trial, no evidence, no nothing.

[MajorKong]

How would you know they're a terrorist if there wasn't any evidence? Do they walk around wearing baseball caps with "Death to America!" on them?

A lot of these guys were not picked up on the battlefield. Many were turned over to us for reward money. Maybe they were a terrorist, maybe somebody was just trying to make a quick buck and/or settle a grudge.

[truthynesslover]

Alot of the people in afganistan were picked up because because their names were given to us by warlords and others who had grudges or wanted thier land.So how do you prove your innocent?

[MajorKong]

Still trying to find the terms "unitary executive", "signing statement", "extraordinary rendition", "enhanced interrogation techniques" and "enemy combatant" in the Constitution.....

[Liberal2]

Ahhhh, well, maybe that's because your looking at the wrong one, the old one. Ya gotta see the Bush "super classified, double top secret, Cheney's eyes only" Constitution v.2. Oh, wait, you're not a Cheney/Bush thug. Sorry, you aren't cleared to read it.

[laocoon]

According to Scalia the President can do anything not specifically forbidden in the Constitution and even if forbidden he can if he claims he needs to. E.G. the executive is only forbidden from torturing people as punishment. If to obtain information about crimes they may be involved in .... no problem.

[MajorKong]

Scalia seems to think that the President gets to act as an absolute monarch during his term in office.

[rudyinbama]

It is sickening to be constantly told that knee-jerk ideologues like Scalia and Bork are "brilliant intellectuals."
What these frauds pass off as philosophy could never stand any actual philosophical examination.
The concept of "originalism" only makes sense when applied to an ORIGINAL document.
That is not what we have.
Our Constitution has been transformed by 27 amendments passed over 211 years. Those amendments have had an effect on virtually every passage in our Constitution, and only in the light of those amendments can our present Constitution be understood.
The notion of "originalism," like Scalia himself, is bogus.

[Cybesq]

This is one of the greatest legal minds in the country? What an absolute crock.

The United States of America represents the world's best chance for a stable democracy and this condescending yob thinks that we are dumb enough to believe that he was worried that we would look foolish if we took the time to count every citizen's vote to the best of our ability?

Scalia is personally responsible, along with the court majority, for the tarnished image of America as a country that failed to protect the most rudimentary staple of fair elective government . Even if I were to believe the belly laugh of an idea that the world was frowning on an electoral delay created by a hanging chad problem, it is impossible to believe that the best solution was the one presented by our most prestigious body of jurisprudence: simply end vote counting in favor of a candidate who didn't even have the popular vote.

Can Scalia honestly say with a straight face that having Bush as a Supreme Court appointed President improved the image of America as a world leading exporter of democracy?

The world has indeed been watching and the real laughing stock is a pompous black robed blowhard.

[FlyingDutchman]

A perfect description, Cybesq!

[Liberal2]

Heh, you may not really understand how bad a legal mind Scalia is.

Googled for "scalia execution of innocent" and found: "In Herrera, Justice Scalia said that even if a person had obtained evidence after trial which showed that he was actually innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted, he could still be legally put to death by the state. Wow. You don't believe me? Here then, in his own words, is the Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia: "There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."

Regardless how ardently any conservative wishes to deny it, Scalia is the embodiment of judges Hitler put in place. Conservatives are evil.

[dperino]

"The United States of America represents the world's best chance for a stable democracy...." with all due respect, not any more.

[jcorrington]

Well said, cybesq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaObamaMama]

That criminal Judge should be sent out of the country ASAP!

[3dtrix]

The core element of conservatism, be it religious or political, is the desire to hold back, or even better, to turn back the hands of time. If these "originalist" - what a euphemism - yahoos had their way, women would still not be allowed to vote (much less control their reproductive destinies) and Clarence Thomas would be a lawn jockey. One can only hope they are caught up in a case of mistaken identity and held for years without charges or their own tender mercies.

[kingofscotts]

I suppose your post might make sense if one were to remove all knowledge of history from their brains prior to reading it.

If it weren't for "conservatives" then Clarence Thomas would not be a Justice. In fact he might actually be a slave. Of course as you know (or should) it was the republicans that freed the slaves. It was the republicans that advanced the civil rights amendments (much to the dismay of the Dems who fought it very hard).

Of course those are just pesky facts getting in the way of your talking points.

Go ahead and censor I know this doesn't fit with Arrianas pre-determined talking points.

[Artboyz]

The "republicans" of Lincoln's day must be turning in their graves to hear "conservatives" like kigofscotts claim their mantle. How desperate things must be for them to have to go so far back to find a positive republican legacy.

It is comforting to see that the bankruptcy of the conservative intellectual position has become so transparent.

[oafishcad]

The Democrats during slave times were he conservatives, today it's the republicans. Your argument makes no sense. During slavery the Conservatives supported slavery. Conservatives have usually been on the side of the oppressor, just as they are today.

[dctackett]

Actually, there was a big shift before our times... well, the end is still playing out, but basically the republicans and democrats switched sides... Republicans of those days are the Democrats of today... and "conservative" does not equal "republican"... and actually most of those in power who call themselves "conservatives," are anything but conservative...

I guess those are just "pesky facts getting in the way of your talking points."

I suggest picking up several history books, maybe listening to some history lectures on podcasts, not just fox news/cnn and the heritage foundation... knowledge is power, being ignorant just makes you look like a... Republican.

[3dtrix]

I am a lifelong student of history with a degree in archeology, kingofscotts, and I am afraid it is you who have allowed the "pesky facts" to get in the way of your haughty and hollow response to mine. As others here have noted, the Republican Party of that era was the rough equivalent of the Dems today, holding that a strong central gov't trumped states' rights (preserve the Union - doh!) for example. The conservative party of that time was called the Whigs.

I don't begrudge you the abusive air of intellectual superiority or the paranoia (you weren't "censored" were you?) - they are symptomatic of the truly tiny-minded and require compassion on the part of those they would presume to steamroll. And besides, conservatives have so much to live down, it's hard to know where to begin a rebuttal - flat earth? McCarthyism? Domino theory? Segregation? Weapons of mass destruction? Denial of global warming?

When you hit the books to bone up on American history, you might look up the Revolutionary War and acquaint yourself with the reality that American conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history since before there was a United States - the "conservative" position then was that the citizens of the thirteen colonies were lawful subjects of the King, and that the promotion of Independence was treason.

Happy Fourth of July!

[3dtrix]

If I had a dollar for every time the conservative Republicans dragged out the tired old canard about them "freeing the slaves" I would be making this reply wireless from Fiji in the media room of my underwater mansion. Yes, Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party when president - but the Republicans of that time were in fierce opposition to the conservative party of their day - the Whig Party - a pesky fact. Lincoln would repudiate contemporary republicanism, and they know it.

If one truly studies American history, as I have for a lifetime, one becomes acquainted with the reality that American conservatives have been on the wrong side of history since before there was a United States - the "conservative" position before the revolution was that all citizens of the thirteen colonies were lawful subjects of the King, and promoting Independence was treason.

Happy Fourth of July!

[FlyingEagel]

I will be so happy when Antonin Scalia is not on the Supreme Court any more. Anyone who justifies nullifying an election because of what the world thinks is so full it. What a weak argument from someone who is supposed to be intelligent. He stole the election from the American people and handed it to bush.

[reason2008]

Gore did not win Florida in any of the recounts.....LIBERAL INCLUDED.

This is FACT FACT FACT. Get over it.

Also, the Supreme Court is more than one person by design.

[foolchild0]

ummm, no, actually, we don't know that, and never will.

stop twisting things around. the recounts weren't completed.

[dctackett]

reminds me of this commercial... "EAT ALL YOU WANT AND STILL LOSE WEIGHT... AND WE COULDN'T SAY ON TV IF IS WASN'T TRUE"...

reason2008 is the guy whose jaw dropped as he put down 1 of his 4 cheese burgers and picked up the phone to order, during the commercial break from the O'Reilly Factor...

hey reason2008, you shouldn't use the word "reason" if you don't use it... talking heads, and those that listen to them, tell you things because they want you to believe it, not because it is actually true... think and learn for yourself, please.