Antonin Scalia - Philosophy of an Originalist

[@yellowburger]

The constitution was created by men with brains, not gods. And if Scalia believed that somehow the founders brains were beyond his brains, then he was an ideologue. What made the founders smarter than him?

[@LibertyPen]

You miss the point. The Constitution -- as written -- was the agreement government made with the people in order to be ratified as the law of the land. Those seeking to change it outside of the amendment process are not unlike someone who makes a contract, then changes the terms whenever it suits them. The devolution of the Constitution attests to how elected officials have acted as termites to the foundation of our liberties.

[@yellowburger]

The constitution should not be changed willy-nilly. However, it needs to adapt over time to historical/social changes. The amendment process is of course one way to do that. As well, interpretation of the constitution shifts over time to adapt to broader external changes. Supreme court judges exist for the very purpose of determining where shifts in interpretation are appropriate.

[@CountArtha]

It's not that the Constitution is always right; it's that the Consititution is the LAW whether YOU think it's right or wrong. _"Garbage in, garbage out."_ - Antonin Scalia

[@yellowburger]

CountArtha It the purpose of Supreme Court justices to interpret the law and determine what is right. They can't just say, "Well that's the law, so it must be right."

[@CountArtha]

yellowburger They can, and they should. If the Constitution is unjust and needs to be changed, that's what Congress and constitutional conventions are for.

[@ericnolle5195]

It takes a strong person to turn down power, and that's exactly why being an "originalist" is so difficult. Doing the right thing usually is difficult.

[@christenasmalls6118]

Doing the right thing is not difficult it is easy if you first know the difference between what is right and wrong.

[@mbd6054]

The definition of the right thing should evolve and broaden, as we evolve as a species. For example, the entitlement to own other human beings was once regarded as being right. We now know it was a terrible wrong. Any Constitution that does not evolve will come into conflict with our evolving values. However, the Constitution should not be easily tampered with, and should require a referendum to amend it. The SC may interpret the Constitution, but not bend it to the point of change.

[@mbd6054]

@Corno di Bassetto You clearly didn't understand any point I made. I'm glad you're happy with your own views.

[@mbd6054]

@Corno di Bassetto I didn't fail my finals.

[@markusmatthew7044]

@@mbd6054 😭😭😭

[@baristha]

If you don't like the constitution then change it, amend it. But stop asking the justices to deliberately give a misreading of the text just so that you may be more comfortable.

[@P3rformula]

the humility he shows is apparent and admirable

[@kevymoranski3887]

God bless Justice Antonin Scalia.

[@alphablitz1024]

8:45 "My hope is not to be influential, Mr. Rose. It is to be right, to be faithful to my oath, which is to apply the Constitution."

[@craxd1]

Scalia was correct in what he stated. There are set procedures to propose and make new law in the US. If a majority of like-minded people wish for a new law, then you do not seek for a court to make law from the bench. You recruit enough like-minded people, and petition the state legislature or congress to make law. If you disagree with the Constitution, then you go through the procedures to pass an amendment. If you disagree with a new law's constitutionality, then you take that to court. The courts were never designed to make law; only to interpret it, and issue a judgement. The problem, is that minorities want to use the court, and certain judges, to make law from the bench, using the living or fluid constitution myth, because they know that their opinion will never be accepted by a majority of the people, a state legislature, or congress. Minorities always try to do an end run around the rule of law, by doing this, and they select judges based on who they know will do it. That is why the Ninth Circuit is in the shape that it is in, as it is filled with underhanded socialist judges, who spout the fluidity doctrine. It is also why the Ninth's rulings are constantly overturned by the Supreme Court.

[@SNESpool]

"Minorities always try to do an end run around the rule of law, by doing this, and they select judges based on who they know will do it." Boy, did this one age well. Can't help but wonder if you'd apply that judgement to the current SCOTUS.

[@PC-Gamer-000]

As a history research enthusiast, I admire the philosophy of Justice Scalia. To truly appreciate a clause within a law, you must refer to the origins, and when you refer to the origins, you study history. Then, once you have obtained the knowledge of what that clause was intended for, it's very difficult to misinterpret the clause, speculate on how it should be, rather than what it was written for. This is the interconnected beauty of researching the roots of what has been established. It promotes an encompassing knowledge.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

could you enumerate the errors for us?

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Oh this is going to be fun, but since It's 3:00 AM, I'll do it by piecemeal 1) Do you know what operative means? It doesn't seem like you do considering your statement literally debunks your first attempt to discredit Scalia 2) You are misquoting someone, This argument is ironically from a book made by Josh Blackman who is actually supporting Scalia's opinions on the columbia vs heller case. What Scalia means is that the 2nd amendment's perfunctory clause helps clarify the statement but does not limit it as it is non operative hence the term perfunctory. Its of the similar body of writing as to most of the amendments in state constitutions especially amendments that regards to individual rights and yet none of the other rights defended by such verbiage are somehow deemed inaccessible. A logical presupposition is basically the closest analog the 2nd amendment is divided into 2 parts, its perfunctory clause and its operative clause. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Grammatically, the prefunctory clause clarifies the underlying purpose of the operative clause but it does not limit it. its similar to a statement like this "A well funded fire department, being necessary to the protection of homes from fires, the right of states to fund services that would protect property, shall not be infringed" As you can see, it clarifies what the operative clause could be used for but does not limit its application. This is basically not even an originalists rebuke to your statement, this is just grammar at work 3. You counting word usage is not an argument. 4. This is you literally trying to assasinate a man's character using your deliberate misunderstanding of his works

[@NP80s]

Justice Scalia’s intellect and personality were exceptional.

[@adamdonahue2079]

I disagree with this man, but this video was very enlightening. I love watching him speak. He also spoke in front of Congress about “loving the gridlock”.

[@paulg444]

Truly one of the greatest men of our time. We lost a national treasure. We love you Antonin!

[@unncommonsense]

I wish that every Supreme Court Justice had the respect for the Constitution that Scalia had.

[@SE-dn7xl]

@Corno di Bassetto That the right to bear arms belongs to the individual? Because it does. Read the federalist papers if you need context. James Madison himself said that a militia is designed to keep the government in check. How can the government regulate a militia (which I highly recommend you discover the definition of) intended to keep that same government in check? Use your head, stop living in fear.

[@SE-dn7xl]

@Corno di Bassetto Ah the ol' liberal "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA" technique. Brilliant.

[@jacklynch3333]

@@SE-dn7xl I would have loved to hear the back and forth. Too bad he deleted his comments.

[@SE-dn7xl]

@@jacklynch3333 It was the typical non-sense you hear from the left. Nothing new or interesting.

[@jacklynch3333]

@@SE-dn7xl bummer. I like to hear what the other side has to say, what value it had. Alas, hot air. Oh well.

[@zjevander9739]

If the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document", then why would they prescribe the process or even mention the concept of Amendments? Why would anybody need to amend anything that is malleable enough to be given to the whims of a justice's personal interpretation? Sounds like the belief of an activist judge looking to bypass constitutional due process...

[@olayemichayah466]

Best comment yet.

[@CA-rg2wv]

Maybe the most ironic comment I’ve ever read

[@timrichardson4018]

Precisely. The founders completely understood that the issues of pressing import to the people would change over time; they would change with new social dynamics, new cultural norms and customs, new problems that they couldn't foresee. As you point out, that is precisely why they included an amendment provision, so the people had a mechanism to change the constitution when enough of them agreed it should be changed.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

@@CA-rg2wv How so?

[@crimsonfire6932]

Exactly. The constitution is a living document in the sense that it can be amended and applied to any societal circumstance. Not in the sense that it’s meaning and interpretation can be changed from generation to generation.

[@pjdurkin8582]

He was a true patriot.

[@parrotlover9035]

"Patriot" is a far-right dog whistle word these days.

[@ChrisVaz92]

"My hope is not to be influential Mr. Rose. It is to be right. To be faithful to my oath" Any politician or voter that disagrees with this, doesn't deserve the vote. But as Scalia would think, they still have that right.

[@TerrierToughGuy]

What a loss his passing was to this country.

[@dartagnan2861]

There is something both admirable and touching in Antonin Scalia. Unlike some of his colleagues, he always showed a certain deference to the constitutional text. He knows what his place is and what the place of the citizens is. A respect for principles that forces admiration 👏👏👏

[@Equalzer]

Now the US has a fully politiced supreme court with justices interpreting text according to their political leanings. I certainly understand the idea behind an originalistic interpretation of the constitution and my eyes have certainly opened a lot after these 14 minutes. His death was a big loss for America.

[@Jaylinjamerson]

Scalia used the “originalist” slogan to push his own biases. Zero morality, only “well it isn’t banned in the constitution, therefore, it should be left up to the states”. It’s a flawed ideology because certain human rights shouldn’t just be “left” up to the states, that’s how we got 246 years of slavery.

[@Equalzer]

​@@Jaylinjamerson There are good arguments to both sides, but what Scalia is on record saying also that amending the constitution should be much easier and thus allowing the citizen to vote people into office with ability to realistically amend the constitution instead of interpreting the constitution as a living document and thus completely turning the supreme court into a fully politicized organ no longer able to maintain separation of powers. You are not supposed to follow your ideological leaning when making legal judgements as a lawyer and I think Scalia advocated for that. Check some of his interviews on youtube and decide for yourself.

[@Jaylinjamerson]

@The RightStuff yes and if you think they don’t, you’re kidding yourself. It’s up to the justices’ PERSONAL morality or beliefs to determine which part of the constitution they want to interpret and/or use to determine their ruling. It takes your own PERSONAL morality to determine a case such as roe v wade to define whether life starts at conception or at birth and that’s where the nitpicking begins.

[@Jaylinjamerson]

@@Equalzer that’s just a cover up to rule for your own ideological leaning. judges don’t just determine the constitutionality, they have to MORALLY decide what is right and what is wrong, hence, why the court IS political because SOME justices believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry or blacks can’t procreate with whites or abortion is a human right. It’s up to your own moral personal belief as to whether banning abortion is government intrusion of your body due to every citizen having a right to privacy OR its constitutional because the constitution doesn’t ban abortion itself therefore it should be left up to the states/majority (which was scalia’s take on roe)

[@emmittmatthews8636]

@@Jaylinjamerson It sounds like you just don't understand our system.

[@panpiper]

Loosing Scalia was a real blow. We are so fortunate that it happened when a Republican president is in office with a Republican majority in congress. We are very likely to get a judge to fill his seat with a similar 'originalist' understanding.

[@panpiper]

I probably didn't follow it as closely as I should have but I could find no hint anywhere that Obama's nominee was not a 'living document' reinterpreter of the constitution, that liberals apparently prefer. Trump's nominee apparently 'does' hold to originalism. Replacing an originalist with a living document adherent would have been as much a disaster as eight years of Obama, perhaps even more so. I was gleeful to the the Republicans digging in their heels on this.

[@corylohanlon]

It didn't. It happened with a Republican Congress that has no respect for the electorate and no integrity. These are the death throes of conservatives losing the culture war. They're painful to watch. Just lay back and accept the sweet embrace of death. Gay people aren't going back in the closet. Atheism is growing, and fast. The war on drugs is ending. Globalism is here to stay. No amount of gerrymandering and voter suppression will stop the slow retreat of the backwards thinking of American social conservatives. Although the opportunity cost of the Trump era will be just catastrophic. It'll push us back 20 years. Change will still happen. It'll just take longer now.

[@christiankane5802]

@@corylohanlon Im a conservative but I am almost fairly certain liberalism always wins.

[@IntheeyesofMorbo]

@@corylohanlon lay back and accept the sweet embrace of death? WTF is wrong with you! you sick f**k you want half the country to die so you can have your impossible socialist utopia? Free men would probably be willing to die fighting than be a slave to a soul-destroying statist power-mad thought controlling dictatorial socialist like you. But take it just laying down? Keep f**king dreaming.

[@TheSicariuss]

This is a joke right

[@timevampire83]

Also one of the pluses is that Originalism should serve as a self-check on judges, who are unelected and serve for life.

[@i.est.del2991]

I couldn’t disagree more with Justice Scalia’s adherence to originalism and textualism. However, I can’t help but be awed how incredibly articulate and eloquent he was in making arguments supporting his view of judicial interpretation. I recently purchased a book composed of some of his most well-known writings including some of his majority opinions, lectures and (most entertaining, in my view) dissents. The man had an extremely rare and mightily enviable ability to wield the English language in such a way that reading his thoughts was and continues to be an immensely enjoyable undertaking. His writing is actually beautiful. The way he makes a point is not only convincing and well supported, but a pleasure to read and dissect. I know this may be immature, but as someone who subscribes to a leftist political ideology within the context of American politics and who is more sympathetic to the method of constitutional interpretation of a Justice Brennan or a Justice Marshall, I’m always a bit bothered that I find Scalia’s positions so far and away more entertaining to read, even though I know I’ll probably end up on the opposite side of the issue, especially as it relates to Scalia’s views on the “living” Constitution. The Warren Court represents the peak of the Supreme Court, in my view. But damn, if I could’ve clerked for any Supreme Court Justice, it would have probably been Justice Marshall, followed closely by Justice Scalia.

[@kokits]

'I know this may be immature'...quite the contrary. You are probably feeling discomfort because 2 of your values are clashing (respect for his intellect and approach Vs your political leanings). Recognizing, wrestling and embracing that discomfort is a rare skill

[@syx3s]

story of my life: I find the most interesting persons not long after they pass. I get to watch all of the amazing work that hey had done, yet will never get to see anything new from them. i'd say it was sad, but these people contributed so much that it is not the case.

[@gaylespencer6188]

The two-word phrase "this Constitution" is used 12 times in the 1787 document. Examples, (1) Preamble, "We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution" (2) Article VI, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land . . ." The count is 15 if Washington’s letter of transmittal to the then Congress (that congress existing under the 1777 Articles of Confederation) is included. The use of the definite article “this” is direct evidence that it was the black-and-white written text which the reader held in his/her hands that was the Constitution, with the words therein understood to mean what they meant at that moment in time, namely, in 1787. The convention in short had made a particularized choice with its use of the definite article "this." The convention used the “this Constitution” phrase to focus the reader’s attention on the precise written words appearing before the reader’s eyes. That is, its meaning was framed by the meaning of those words as they were then commonly understood. Those words were then the sole source, the origin as it were, for what the Framers intended.

[@TeaParty1776]

Note the conservative defense of mindless democracy, ie, of Leftism. Note the conservative hatred of a rational, educated interpretation of the Constitution.

[@FretlessMayhem]

The word “constitution” itself meant something like an enduring will. Like when someone has an “iron constitution”. It’s like saying they’re stubborn. He’s correct in saying the federal Constitution is an impediment to change.

[@lockey820]

A giant in thought. Clear, kind, logical.

[@RosannaMiller]

He truly was one of the better people we have had in our Supreme Court. He is missed.

[@konberner170]

The judge who says, "that is how I think it [the Constitution] should be, so that is how it will be" is what I would call an evil man. That isn't being a judge, it is being a tyrant. Except for that disagreement, much respect for Scalia.

[@Foe-Hammer]

he was referring to the "other side" or opposite his typical conservative point of view(which would be progressive) that likes to interpret the constitution not as it is but how they think it should be.

[@SKeeZy1902]

It doesn't make him evil because one doesn't understand Judicial interpretation of the Constitution. He actually phrased his answer quite well. And if you'll re-watch the interview and listen you'll hear him talking about Kon nerner and other people that don't appreciate the value in the Constitution.

[@konberner170]

Atomic: Right, but he claimed those people are not evil, I disagree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't like the idea of a contract being changed without unanimous consent, so I agree with Scalia except on that one point.

[@ihatebyu1985]

He was a big fan of attacking ideas, not people. He isn't calling them evil because, he knows they are making those decisions without malice intent and with good intentions. He will tell them they are wrong, and their ideas are stupid (because they are) but he generally avoided personal insults.

[@IsChrisHere]

By that logic, the majority of the legal community around the world and in the US are evil people. In fact, law students are taught to interpret legal documents the way living constitutionalists do from year one, so it's more like an indoctrination problem. Get out of this business of oversimplifying things, especially people, and get some perspective. You're not going to convince anyone by calling them evil anyway.

[@jeffmonaghan]

The right of an individual within our government's separation of powers extends to the vastness of each person's ability to comprehend LIBERTY. The responsibility of each of us is to read our Constitution and become informed of our rights against an authority or power. But if that authority or power is of our own design, we have the opportunity to change it. Accountable to God, our nation's vision of justice is meant to inspire all of us to a more perfect union. Out of FREEDOM comes LIBERTY. Out of JUSTICE comes PEACE. Our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are indeed the presence (at the root) of the divine within human existence.

[@mitchellseeman4783]

this is easily the best youtube channel i have ever come across

[@davidolson8537]

Exactly. One needs to understand the original meaning. And then...and then...how does one apply that meaning today?

[@gregorychandler5149]

In 24 hours from the time I watch this video, President Trump will announce his 2nd pick of a justice for the Supreme Court. Personally I hope that he nominates Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Kennedy. Of the supposed 4 nominees he has, she is the only one who clerked for Justice Scalia. If she was able to absorb any of the wisdom of this great man, there will be a glimmer of hope for our great republic.

[@bukcot]

You got your wish.

[@jonathangreen2840]

I have never agreed with one thing this man has ever said, but I have tremendous respect for him

[@UKtoUSABrit]

What a brilliant man, and humble. The antithesis of some of these judges we see in 2024. Shame there arent more like him

[@UnchainedEruption]

Brilliant mind, and great reasoning for an interesting perspective.

[@someonenew439]

Scalia changed the court forever. He gave originalism a new birth. God bless this man for he is the avatar of the law.

[@pamelawest2523]

Justice Barrett has the same humble approach, but I believe she will bring her own worldview and skillsets to the Court.

[@RosannaMiller]

As a Constitutionalist, he and I are alike. I am curious as to if there are differences in our ideologies. And if so, what they are. I would have loved to have met him, to gain some possible knowledge and wisdom.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

@Corno di Bassetto You really need to take a stroll through Newark, NJ at 2AM on a Saturday morning.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

@Corno di Bassetto I'll stick with more significant reading material and leave the comic books to you ad the other collectivist . IV. The Declaration as Adopted by Congress [6 July 1775] A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the Causes and Necessity of their taking up Arms.

[@InChristalone737]

Originalism is about to become the majority 🙏🏻👍🏻

[@Armando7654]

when was this televised!

[@kkaugare]

June 2008

[@Publius-24]

Federalist# 78 "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 making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge." Publius

[@dfull31]

A “living Constitution” gives power to the Judges in the sense that they have the power to change the document. An originalist’s only desire is to interpret and enforce what the law said. A “living Constitution” brings dangers that could corrupt the document and the very fundamental purpose the Document was supposed to have. Justice Scalia is a giant of a mind with wonderful characteristics as humility and grace. I’ve loved learning from this mans words.

[@objectivereality1392]

If referees judged football games by "interpretation" of the rulebook, or by "adjusting the rules to fit modern times", instead of simply ruling based on the text itself, it means they're making up new rules to the game of football during the actual game. How can a player be expected to effectively play a game if the rules can change in the middle of it? Similarly, how can Americans expect to have their rights protected if an unelected judge can decide they're not in the mood to protect our rights that day?

[@UnchainedEruption]

The counter-argument to that though--and I see the value of the originalist philosophy, but for sake of argument--consider individual issues. Take same-sex marriage. I think most Americans would agree that same-sex marriage should be allowed, and that not allowing it would be unfair treatment. It would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In this case, it seems to make more sense to interpret the law in a more contemporary context to better protect justice for people living today. It would be different if the first amendment were suddenly being re-interpreted to mean "free speech is okay, as long as it doesn't offend anybody" by the courts. In that case, clearly a more original interpretation should hold more value. At the end of the day, I think what has the most practical value at improving everyday American's lives now (and in the future) should hold precedence over a stubborn clinging to outdated understandings of liberty.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

@@UnchainedEruption What vested interest does the government claim over the institution of marriage ? Marriage is a religiously sanctioned dogma that is by the 1st Amendment none of the governments business to interfere with, regulate or license. Rather than push for bigger, more intrusive government, push government out of areas that it doesn't have Constitutional authority to mettle in.

[@namechange4919]

The Einstein of Supreme Court Judges imo

[@chalmerscharitycrouse7834]

Comment 463: The just did a 23.1 on this video. How many days is it going to take? I believe they are aiming for seven. 10:18 am CST April 8, 2022

[@chroniclerofthe70s]

Yes, the constitution was created by men with brains who understood the corrupt nature of human beings and the history of tyrants in both kingdoms and government. The nature of human beings has not changed with time , thus the constitution as written by the framers still holds true today.

[@SNESpool]

"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816 The idea of a living constitution was present from the beginning, and advocated for by some of the same voices that originalists often use to justify their methods. It was never a "strange notion"

[@BobWidlefish]

You can either use the meaning that was ratified by the representatives of the people, or you can make excuses for prioritizing your opinion over the law as ratified and amended with due process.

[@mango2005]

There are two brands of originalism: Original Intent and Original Meaning. Scalia was Original Meaning I think. Bork was Original Intent and I think so is Kavanaugh judging by his first few SCOTUS cases.

[@ArmandoTeixeira82]

Yes he was

[@pjamesbda]

01:46 Certainly views change. What things mean changes. In the 1400s it was finally accepted the horizon wasn't a place you'd fall off of if you went to it! There are absolutes, just as there is truth. It takes quite an ego however, to think they should decide for rest of us! 03:40 Anyone with any life experience knows the deepest depravity generally comes out of ignorance, not understanding. Allowing others to believe you have the power of discerning truth for them is a kind of ignorance. In closing, he concludes he interprets the Constitution and that is it.

[@teresasevans1926]

What an awesome judge

[@ericreeves5380]

SCALIA WAS MURDERED !!!!

[@ivansalazar5448]

The US Constitution is certainly not to be played with for any light hearted purposes. However, but that does not preclude it's also a document that needs to be subject to revision and change when is truly warranted...

[@jshir17]

*As a son of the American Revolution, I'm still sympathetic to originalism, but I realize that it is a living constitution, hence the Bill of Rights and the other amendments-one would have to discard all of them to be a true originalist.*

[@kwazooplayingguardsman5615]

You're a moron, The bill of rights and other ammendments are upheld by originalists BECAUSE they were instituted into being by the people and the processes instated.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

Yeah... not really. "Originalism" really just means to interpret the law as it was originally written and Intended to be understood. In doing so, you interpret any changes because that is also part of the "Original" process... They were lawful changes.. Whether the law you're interpreting was written 235 years ago or last week, it doesn't matter. The original Intent of that law is what you're looking for. If the law hasn't been superceded, repealed, or replaced, then it is still the law of the land. The people haven't changed it! Therefore it's not the place of the judge to do so! If the law is outdated or just a bad law, then only a correct ruling will highlight its flaws. "Reinterpreting" it ignores the problem and creates more problems. If you can reinterpret it, why can't I? The law effectively doesn't exist anymore and all that exists is the whims of whoever is in power.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

Did Justice Scalia ever do a public address or interview on his interpretation of the 9th Amendment?

[@Gabriel-hs9mv]

He did, he thought it referred to natural law

[@claymate202]

Thoughts on statements left open for interpretation? Like “unreasonable” in the 4th amendment

[@arcad1an292]

Originalist- not always reaching a decision you like

[@doorran]

that's not what "originalist" means

[@hellothere-hx5by]

I do disagree with Justice Scalia on one point. Rights are inalienable, and so if we have a right, that means the government is PROHIBITED from legislating away that right. So the courts have the power to figure out if we have that right or not, based on the fundamental rights the US constitution was founded on to protect (right to life, liberty, property). For example, the courts do have the power to determine whether we have a right to abortion, and justify that as an aspect of a more broader right (such as the right to liberty, which I think it true). For if the courts think that abortion violates a fetus's right to life (which I don't because rights depend on the bodily autonomy of adult humans), then they can prohibit legislation that protects abortion. Of course, if we the people don't wish for the court to do all this reasoning in case of errors in their judgment, we can make some rights more explicit by talking our representatives and getting an amendment passed. But of course we literally can't enumerate every single right we have because the applications are infinite, so the courts are going to be the main body that figure out the particular application of broader rights to determine the more particular rights.

[@izkh4lif4]

What is the difference between the constitution “adapting” to new social norms, and the constitution being “abused” by those who wish to change social norms in their own image (socialists, communists, fascists)?

[@9879SigmundS]

Underlying Scalia's philosophy is a humility. He wants the people not unelected judges to make decisions that are founded upon new values that did not exist at the time the states ratified the Constitution. To the extent that justices do vote their values, he believed they should have to discuss their values in the confirmation process so the senators can make sure their constituents' preferences can be accounted for.

[@jordancook1668]

The man was a legend.

[@cjpenning]

Charlie doesn't have the intelligence to do this interview justice. Pardon the pun. Watch Uncommon Knowledge for a deeper understanding.

[@hazelonnutella9599]

I love listening to all justices from Scalia, to Breyer, to Bader-Ginsburg, to Gorsuch, to Sotomayor, and now Coney-Barett. The wisdom and judicial knowledge they have is truly above partisan politics, and all humble, too! The only justice I find unfit for the role is Kavanaugh. Listening to his confirmation hearing and interviews is like listening to an arrogant college fraternity jock. Reading his decisions, especially next to other justices' writings especially the conservative ones, makes his look like a high school english essay! No wonder only Gorsuch joins him in writing his opinions. Most of the time, he joins someone else or writes opinions by himself 🤣

[@andrewdolokhov5408]

What a great interviewer! I wonder what happened to him?

[@kkaugare]

Lol!!! That's funny 😂

[@SimpleManGuitars1973]

After this interview he made an advance on Scalia. LOL!

[@mainemceachern1521]

Scalia was obviously a very intelligent man and jurist. I'm not entirely sure why he was such an originalist, but somehow the highest-order wisdom of purposive, big-picture interpretation escaped him. All things in the universe change; all MUST change. Nothing man makes is perfect; the Constitution is no different. It was a visionary document for its times, but here we are well over 2 centuries later and we live in a massively different and extremely fast evolving world, that requires continuously creative thinking, approaches and laws to update to the exigencies of. An endlessly rigid and dogmatic textualist interpretation of the law only ensures that it becomes increasingly detached from and in conflict with reality. No judge - least of all Supreme Court judge - should ever err so much on the side of blind fealty to tradition, convention and to literalist enforcement of oft-flawed human documents.

[@gugulethudube578]

Although purposivism lacks control and tends to override clear texts it is still valid as an aid to interpretation if premised on original meaning. However most originalists tend to reject purpose of law and like to frame all other alternative methods of interpretation as amending the Constitution, in truth most judges accept the text as the major premise and differences are only a product of application 1789 law to new facts and realities. For example, Scalia denied that the 14th Amendment "equal protection of the laws" did not include laws passed by states or Congress to protect gay marriages. He absurdly interpreted "law" not as an instrument passed by a competent body but as the "laws" as those that existed in 1868. His interpretation seem to deny that any right conferred by law passed by Congress after 1868 dealing with new facts not known to the generation of that time does not enjoy "equal protection of all laws".

[@iFreeThink]

Press productivity into limit-less productivity?

[@miked5106]

Charlie, the founders were legislatures. We still have some of those right? They can write statues, or amend the Constituion. That's not the courts job

[@tennislite]

Sc alia speaks off separation of powers as a great trait of the US. States rights is a bigger trait of US success. I lived in Mexico. No state taxing for local government service.

[@amirkammona7480]

Just as one should not expand the constitution on his own he also should not restrict it on his own. Also, I find it at least equally probable that the founders would have chosen a parliamentary system had they been more confident about the continuity of the democratic process instead of being as pioneers in that field, world wide, as they were.

[@happywanderer2874]

Oh it’s pervy charlie interviewing.

[@gamerboy5908]

Things change it’s literally dumb to be an originalist.

[@rumblebeast08]

I respect and agree with Scalia on his general premise, but the abortion debate is not one of "choice" that the government can't suppress. You either believe in saving a life from being terminated, or you believe in convenience of the mother to not be responsible for raising a child. One of those is a great evil, the other is an inconvenience. There's a reason the Constitution was amended to identify black Americans as equal human beings to white Americans...the same justification is being used to de-humanize a baby before it is born and our government should be guaranteeing the life of said babies like the ORIGINAL Constitution stated!

[@DT7w8]

So when we don't like their decision we say how can these un-elected justices make decisions that disagree with my values. Scalia is of the view that if it is unconstitutional then it should be up to the state legislature to decide the best value judgement in a revised law for the people of that state. The objection at least his to Roe v Wade is that the Supreme court should overrule the constitution by some majority vote to over rule the State legislature. I agree with him, and so it is not the position of the Supreme Court to decide the value based judgement of the people but to interpret the constitution as it was written. So expect Roe v Wade to be overturned when majority of the court is more like Scalia. I love what he says that the Constitution is a living document, it is a textual document that remains true to its meaning when it was written. If we don't like any provision then make amendments. It is like the Bible - we have to right to change the text or the meaning - to suit what we like at any time in history.

[@siryoda8145]

Just so you know, you clearly miss the intend of his statements. He was saying the Constitution does not speak to it as it currently is . . whic his factually true. I do not see how this can even be argued as simply word search of the document shows. He is saying that if you believe one way or the other about abortion, convince your neighbors and legislators. Even to the point of amending the constitution, as was done with the 13, 14, and 15th amendments which started to address the problem you identify. Sounds reasonable . . . but it is so very hard. It takes time and effort . . . and more time. But the truly important changes are worth it. The culture wars of the last 50 years might have been greatly lessened if we had done this more.

[@eriksmith2514]

"the abortion debate is not one of "choice" that the government can't suppress." You're essentially saying abortion is homicide. The Constitution does not require states to outlaw homicide.

[@chevy6299]

But how can the Supremes stop legislating from the bench.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

@Thomas Headley Wasn't that one of the original cases that lead to politicizing the court in favor of government authority over any issue the legislative bodies chose to write laws on whether it be Constitutional or not? that is a question.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

@Thomas Headley Thank You for the clarification.

[@motocross_cooper]

A document is MEANINGLESS if you do not adhere to its intent at its creation.

[@rustybarrel516]

Imagine the chaos of contract law.

[@hamsterc6448]

I respect Justice Scalia more than almost any politician today, but I do believe that it's important for justices to adapt the constitution and law to societal changes in certain cases. For example, I'm sure the founding fathers weren't thinking about equal rights, but equal rights for everyone is something a majority of society wants and what is considered the norm or what things should be. Thus, it should be interpreted to fit modern society.

[@jaystrickland4151]

It is worth noting the 3rd generation after the founders passed a constitutional amendment expressly for equal rights so I am not entirely certain the justices need to change the constitution for that reason as the states handled the matter.

[@hamsterc6448]

@@jaystrickland4151 what are you talking about lmao. Which amendment? How have the states brought equal rights?

[@jaystrickland4151]

@@hamsterc6448 The 14th amendment and it is the states under our system that amend the constitution normally after submission of the amendment by congress.

[@hamsterc6448]

@@jaystrickland4151 the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee equal rights for everyone. In theory it does, yes, but in practice it's way too vague and broad to actually cover all the forms of discrimination present in America today.

[@jaystrickland4151]

@@hamsterc6448 The relevant portion of text reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That is broad but intentionally so and most certainly not vague. I also find it interesting that you start this thread by asserting living constitutionalism is needed to boarded protections and rights, such as equality, yet also complain that the text too broad ? Well which is it is the text too broad or is the text too narrow with a need to be widened by the Court ?

[@ShivamSharma-zd8lw]

What about Scalia saying that the phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" in the 8th amendment didn't apply to a police officer beating on a person.

[@kwazooplayingguardsman5615]

Shivam Sharma its punishments in the context of the edicts imposed by the courts, the constitution prohibits the courts from condemning a criminal to torture. Police hurting a prisoner however, the constitution says nothing about it and thus it is left to the democratic vote of the people.

[@munenenganga2191]

He's one of the reasons many in common law countries no longer cite opinions of the elitist, oligarchic Supreme Court of the United States.

[@RandyRibbon]

Originalist's put aside the fact that the founders themselves were not sure about how to interpret the constitution down to the letter. The judge will still create their own interpretation of the text, whether they claim that it is true to some dead guy's interpretation makes it no less their own.

[@iFreeThink]

I don't get it... :[ Because I've done weird stuff too.

[@marthaluke3863]

the founding fathers experienced war and history, faith and hope for the U.S. with all its pain, suffering and desires for the future freedoms, liberties and independence in the United States.. Much changed in industrialization, civilization and social allowing more time for leisure. But freedom and independence for individuals and success of a government system with its people that does not infringe on its peoole, nor do individuals and groups infringe on other individuals. Attempts to change life in the United States takes all back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights which will stand against time and tyranny. It is time in the U.S. to stand firmly in the constitution.

[@awb9012]

What Scalia overlooked in his rather lazy conclusion that what makes the US political system unique was the seperation of the executive from the 2 so called independently run Houses, is the fact that in modern times both houses have become the slaves of vested interest and powerful corporate lobbyists and in the case of Israel, foreign government lobbyists. And with that the American exceptionalism that he identified, and correctly so, died making the US no less exceptional than the worst form of despotic government out there.

[@brightlight7217]

In the founder's mind, black people were not citizens. Referring to the original interpretation every single time can mean advocating for slavery. That's why the socio-dynamic element plays a big role when you're a justice. You can't wait for Congress when they happen to be majority racists to make a new law, but you should understand the moment we live in. Dont underestimate your power which has to be animated by the constant seek of better.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

In the founders mind black people weren't citizens, And? The U.S fought a civil war which created amendments that extended the franchise to blacks, and it is those amendments that the judges use to give blacks the ability to stand as a member of the jury or vote in elections, etc. If you think the bill of rights were only the first ten and that no amendments were passed after the 18th century then you have the opinion you have right now.

[@richs4678]

Just because the constitution does not prevent Govt from taking something away does not make it ethical for the Govt to take away a freedom. Ever heard of the 2/3rds compromise? Those things were looked at as constitutional. The Constitution has its limits, have you ever heard of states arresting gays for consensual sex acts in Texas or Kansas or Oklahoma? Is this morally acceptable to arrest gays like in Saudia Arabia, to water board suspects of terrorism, to segregate based on race? All are constitutional under original interpretation. Original interpretation is sick and not nearly adequate in my humble opinion. @@johnisaacfelipe6357

[@richs4678]

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Its important to note that many decades went by before blacks were given equal rights under the constitution by the majority of voters. In fact, 180 years went by. Slaves were born, and died. Their offspring were born, and died as slaves. Their offspring were born slaves, died segregated and uneducated, and impoverished. Now should white people today take responsibility? Heck no, I've nothing to do with this. I don't support it, I don't like it and its not anybody's fault today for what happened then. However, it can be learned that democratic change takes time, and often times democratic processes fail people miserably. The VERY EXISTENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION is proof of this. So, for me weening back the power of the only document RESTRAINING the Govt from its citizens by declaring things as non-rights for me is very negative. I look at it like this, if you lengthen the leash of a pit bull, it can travel further before it is stopped. If the leash is long enough for the Pit Bull to reach the sidewalk, what happens? Now, Obama care forces somebody to purchase an expensive product. Is this constitutional? Well in the past it was ruled unconstitutional to force a citizen to buy something that in an interstate good.... SO does Obama care give or take? I think a good answer would be it takes away. I am all about giving back freedom rather than taking away. I don't care what the document says. If you look at the 4,500 odd federal laws and crimes one can commit in the USA today for me it is utterly meaningless. It is not worth the paper its written on or the computer software it is saved into. It is essentially an Orwellian concept of "liberty" based upon what is politically popular with hundreds and thousands of laws based mostly around SEX, and DRUGS.

[@vuluv]

"When most historians look closely at originalist arguments, what they usually find is bad history shaped to fit an ideological agenda-what historians derisively call “law office history.”" READ: www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/new-originalism-a-constitutional-scam

[@RealMrBruh]

That article dosen't actually give an evidence to back up its claims. Also it makes inaccurate claims about orginalism "The goal of new originalism is not to constrain judges, but to empower them to further the agenda of conservatives." This is just not true as Scalia talks about in this video its about not trying to give in to the current public or conservative opinion on issues. Also "It allows “conservatives” to create their own living constitution and advance a form of judicial activism" once again another misunderstanding, orginalsim is the rejection of the idea of a living constitution or in other words its against the idea that what the constitution means is up to at last 5 justices at any particular moment.

[@kirkbowyer2758]

GOD BLESS JUSTICE SCALIA

[@paddleflambeau9434]

You’re in heaven 🙌

[@garysantos7053]

Abortion: What the Founding Fathers Thought About it In 1973 the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated that "at the time of the adoption of our Constitution abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect." While the Court did not discuss the views of the Founding Fathers regarding abortion, the implication is clear: abortion was assumed to be a commonly accepted practice in 1787 America, and therefore must have likewise been acceptable to the Founding Fathers themselves. Duane Ostler, 2014 "Abortion: What the Founding Fathers Thought About it," 6(1) Regent Journal of Law and Public Policy, 181 (2014)

[@stallonegodinho6296]

I came across an article that says that many states had laws against abortion when the constitution was made. So the constitution was not meant to abolish abortion.

[@garysantos7053]

@@stallonegodinho6296 The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject. Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 where Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful,” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.” Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public. Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well-known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a hemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” A hemoptysis is a clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu. Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion. In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives. Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers. The fact that they practice birth control and, when necessary, terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment. In the William and Mary Quarterly, Dayton examined a case from 1742 that occurred in the village of Pomfret, Connecticut, where 19-year-old Sarah Grosvenor died in a bungled abortion urged on her by her 27-year-old lover Amasa Sessions. Magistrates filed charges against both Sessions and the “doctor of Physick” who mangled the operation, but Dayton points out the legal complaints were not for performing the abortion as such (which was legal) but for killing the mother. -American Creation

[@garysantos7053]

@@stallonegodinho6296 According to the Bible, the sanctity of sex is to "Be fruitful and multiply." The Bible also says, as well as proven by science, Life does not begin at a detectable heartbeat nor when a fetus is viable, "The Miracle Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception." Science teaches without reservation that Life begins at fertilization (conception). It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique person. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days or three weeks after fertilization), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From fertilization, it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its Life is not ended through violence or illness. -LIVEACTION/ By Sarah Terzo | January 13, 2013

[@stallonegodinho6296]

@@garysantos7053 Can u provide me more sources on why abortion should be illegal. And why life begins at concept. I just need some reference.

[@DaMoli]

“Si non est justitia, ruat caelum et sequente vias iniquitate” Originalism is Article 1 Section 10 of The United States Constitution kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3enlmihirqsipI

[@DeadEndFrog]

Well surely theres a diffrence in interpretation of words, and interpretation of intent. Saying all men are born equal can either mean men only, or all people are born equal, which is a smal problem of interpretation. But when one looks at the history, one sees slaves and females being supressed. So one has to ask if they where hypocrits, or simply meant men only, because of the consiquences of their actions.

[@rhynosouris710]

The constitution does not say "all men are born equal" (that's the Declaration of Independence). Through the amendment process, the constitution has moved closer to that ideal

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@rhynosouris710 thanks, good to know! Even if its not a real law , the it can be used as an example of intent/action so im leaving it unedited

[@dennislurvey3235]

Scalia in a speech said he decided cases on what he thought HIS god would want, then found some secular law to hide it in so we wouldn't find out he was a theocrat.

[@rustybarrel516]

Is that speech on KZbin?

[@dennislurvey3235]

@@rustybarrel516 I watched it on youtube. small gathering.

[@rustybarrel516]

I’ve found news stories about a speech he gave at a Catholic high school in Louisiana in early 2016, but I can’t find video of the speech itself. Is that the speech you’re referring to?

[@dennislurvey3235]

@@rustybarrel516 no it looked like to a professional group, people sitting at tables and him on a very small stage. do you doubt he said that? I have an excellent memory and as an advocate for separation I was appalled by his statement. He did write the opinion for Employment that was very pro separation.

[@rustybarrel516]

@@dennislurvey3235 Not doubting. Just was hoping to find something I could show someone else.

[@andironaldo9370]

He sounded so much like Attorney General Barr

[@iFreeThink]

Elderly relatives always get respect in normal households.

[@Eliezar77]

Judges are tasked with interpreting the law that we the people have elected people to make, ie the House and the Senate. They are unelected and so are NOT allowed under the constitution to make new law. If the PEOPLE decide, that the Constitution should be changed, they have the power to do so. Is it difficult yes. But simply cause the people are lazy in holding the legislative branch accountable for their job to make laws, does not mean anyone should advocate the branch charged with interpreting the law should take over the legislative branch's job. @yellowburger you seem to be advocating that cause there is injustice or lag time in the Constitution coming to grips with all that has changed technologically. But such is as design. If something IS UNJUST, Our legislators should be addressing it. The Consitution ENSURES freedom. It restricts the power of the government while giving the people the means to as a whole form the body of laws THEY want to have over them. What you are arguing for, makes the people vulnerable to unelected individuals imposing their will and idea of what is right over the PEOPLE. There is NO excuse for it.

[@Eliezar77]

The gridlock you seek to bypass was intentionally set up to make sure it would take a serious consensus. Why? TO PROTECT US! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZjdkJqaYpKIhZI

[@Eliezar77]

LIsten. The primary opposition to your point of view for the last 20+ years, has answered you long ago. Scalia on Life part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKOpm2qAdt6oqsk Scalia on Life part 2 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIaUn2qIh7qsbpY

[@Jharrycornelius]

Supposedly smart guy.

[@richs4678]

The problem with democratic change is often times it results in rights and justice being violated with those effected never gaining any rights or freedoms. This can be said for gay sexual acts, which are still listed as felonies in several US states including Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma. Do you want to execute gays, or arrest gays like in Saudi Arabia, or in the UAE or in Yemen? The penalties for sodomy and forcible sodomy which constitutes gay sex acts in these states allows for the same types of punishments.... Just because the majority or ideologues (not really the citizens anymore but just the majority of political ideologues) supports something does not make it right.

[@iFreeThink]

I never expected anything from my previous, Chinese classmates. Because they didn't say anything offensive.

[@abrahamjean8176]

I respect Scalia and thought he was a good judge and great man. However saying the death penalty isn’t unconstitutional kinda sits weird for me. Sure, I can understand why some people think it’s fair and in some cases I would believe so. Yet who are we to dictate when someone should die? I think it should really be on a case by case basis on how that policy is applied because it’s too uncertain and final of a call for the courts to make at anytime. But beside that point this whole video highlights how not good like I said, but great of a justice this man was.

[@rustybarrel516]

What he said doesn’t preclude the people supporting passage of laws that ban the death penalty. He merely said that the constitution as written does not preclude the use of the death penalty. Likewise, he would agree that the constitution does not require the use of the death penalty.

[@abrahamjean8176]

@@rustybarrel516 Well if it doesnt mention it at all (though the cruel and unusual punishment seems pretty categorically correct to me) then how is it even a thing we can use? According to originalists we should be able to make laws on what the constitution actually says. Death penalty isnt included so it shouldn't even be on the table from that point of view.

[@rustybarrel516]

@@abrahamjean8176 The rationale is that the death penalty was not considered cruel or unusual punishment at the time the constitution and the bill of rights were ratified by voters. Therefore it is not unconstitutional. The people may want to prohibit it anyway and are free to support that through democratic processes.

[@abrahamjean8176]

@@rustybarrel516 ok but how is what they thought back then a parameter for how we decide situations now? If we are basing everything on how the founders, who were very flawed and human themselves, thought and operated and believed, then why are we even supposed to use that ancient set of rules to do anything? It’s nothing special in itself when you look at the rules it has and if we are to regard it as a way to protect our rights and guide us, then it should be able to be applied to the times we live in. And if that is too much to ask then we can just yeet the Supreme Court because then they’ll barely have a job to do and will be wasting tax dollars money to sit there and read 200 year old text.

[@rustybarrel516]

@@abrahamjean8176 I recommend watching other videos in which he explains more fully his judicial philosophy. He can explain it far better than I can.

[@acornsucks2111]

Charlie has his clothes on.

[@jasonavant7470]

Are corporations people? People die, corporations don't.

[@hlysnan6418]

Actually, corporations go out of existence all the time (regardless of whether this makes them "people").

[@walterarchibald1318]

those who wrote it could not imagine our world...

[@walterarchibald1318]

@Ken MacDonald I agree, completely. Maybe I'm stuck when I consider the mystery of how they did it. Re: human nature. Most of my life I believed it was improving.

[@slashtopher2193]

Yo, Charlie. What's YOUR legacy?