Uncommon Knowledge with Justice Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia visits Uncommon Knowledge for a wide ranging interview including the living constitution, Roe v. Wade, Congress' relationship to the court, and to discuss his new book Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.
To listen to an mp3 of the interview go to:
itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/un...
feeds.feedburner.com/UncommonK...

[@williamreymond2669]

Mr Robinson, you are probably the best prepared interviewer I have ever had the pleasure to have listened to. Your questions are both intelligent, and help, immeasurably, your audience understand the significance of the material under discussion.

[@einhornisaman2973]

I'm sure Justice Scalia really enjoyed having a more in depth conversation with Peter.

[@BruthaVIII]

We lost a brilliant legal mind and principled man today. I met Justice Scalia about eight years ago, and he was extremely interesting, pleasant, and kind. Rest in peace, good sir.

[@BruthaVIII]

He was not a hypocrite. I think most people, regardless of political affiliation, would agree that Scalia was consistent in his interpretation of the Constitution, and wasn't a "liar". Unlike liberal judges/justices who interpret law subjectively, Scalia always sought objective interpretation by looking to the text of the law, and if unclear, the intent of the legislators. He didn't care about whether or not he was popular, or if "his side" won.

[@purpleflurp1197]

+Brutha V He was a great man, it's refreshing to see someone not celebrating his death. When ever a big Democrat dies even republicans will show their respects. But every single video has thousands of liberals saying terrible things about his death. Thank you for spreading his word and not flinging dirt on a deceased man. He was amazing at his job and can never be replaced. God rest his soul.

[@KnowTrentTimoy]

+Brutha V He was a Catholic and a conservative who utilized the pulpit of the High court as his devine right to espouse religious context into his self-reliant interpretation of constitutional law. His work was defiantly evident with the blunt and profound racists rhetoric he endorsed and relished during an interview regarding affirmative action and the legalities stated thereof. Scalia did not hold back when it came to marriage equality and the struggles same-sex individuals fought to secure. As a deeply religious figure he made ample segmentations into his faith as a means to interconnect and distribute catholic dogma and constitutional divinity. A subject matter strictly prohibited by the drafters of the founding doctrine whose interests were deeply rooted in the separation of religious context and state politics. All of these conflicting insertions were construed and concocted by a religious zealot bent on conditioning the high court with his self-appointed majesty of divine intervention.

[@bugbeemaine5673]

+Trent Timoy What religious context? Where did he bring his religion into any case he decided? Have you actually read any of his opinions? You just assume because he is religious in his personal life that therefor he ruled a certain way because of his religious beliefs. Take gay marriage for example. Where did he say he opposed it being imposed on the whole country because of religion? He was correct in his opinion that it is a State matter, and States can make it legal if they want, or choose not to. That is how our Constitution was intended to work Think 10th Amendment.

[@bugbeemaine5673]

+Trent Timoy So according to you no one who is religious can be a judge? Did you read Scalia's opinion on the gay marriage case? I don't recall any religious views expressed by him. But again, it is a nice way to dismiss any point of view you don't like.

[@danieljakubik3428]

The late supreme court justice Scalia was quite down to earth and a great communicator

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

I'm watching this eight years later, and my eyes fill up with tears again. What a painful loss!

[@tubespirit7]

God Bless Justice Scalia, missed and always appreciated. May the Lord grant us another Justice with the insight, deference, logic and temperament of the man.

[@MrClark-df9qn]

Justice Scalia was the brain, heart and soul of the court.

[@CarbonGlassMan]

What an enormous loss. What a great man.

[@jimdeiner9293]

My goodness! What an intellect. What a funny person. What an entirely humble and unaffected "mensch". ... he will be missed.

[@purpleflurp1197]

It's sickening watching people say "He's dead! Horaay!" that's pure hate and disrespect. They whine and say he was full of hate, and yet they still don't see an even more hateful person inside of them making fun of a deceased, brilliant man. May God rest his soul and some peace of mind go to his family.

[@brianevans4]

Peter Robinson does such a great job! So underrated. Uncommon Knowledge is a rare gem on KZbin. He has been doing excellent interviews for the last decade, and seemingly gained such little recognition. He has built up a great portfolio of interviews with incredibly intelligent influential people. Thank you for the great service you do to our society Peter!

[@adrianfisher3349]

I've seen Judge Scalia interviewed in several videos and he always came across as a genuinely decent chap. I wish I could have met him in person.

[@projectjt3149]

Me too. I'm not interested in studying law as a college major, but I wouldn't mind going to some of his lectures. It's a good thing we have the Internet.

[@MrBAMAFANATIC]

Our justice system has gone to hell in a handbasket since we lost him

[@asphyxiafeeling]

One of the best interviewers I have ever seen

[@bluo88]

One of the very best episodes of UK. This is perhaps my eighth watch.

[@johnhistorian7291]

+No One Scalia needs to stop glorifying the 1950s. They were not great.

[@herrperfessrdoktordenknmei1876]

A voice of reason! Oh, that it were still available to us today!

[@LivinginSouthChina]

Scalia was an outstanding and honest man.

[@inGodweTrustForever]

A man of great character. RIP

[@jockoadams3377]

141 people are purposeists and tried to mis-interpret Scalia's views as being something other than correct and brilliant. They were wrong.

[@jll5568]

RIP Justice Scalia

[@wessonsmithjr.6257]

Wonderful man, wonderful justice. You sir will be sorely missed.

[@gerard1875]

He was a great man with great knowledge of the law and its application. He loved the law and the application of it in a reasonable way without favour to any party. I enjoy watching his you tube videos and learning from his wisdom. He is at peace now. We shall always profit from his wisdom and love of mankind.

[@qwerasdf1338]

Wonderful man. We were lucky to have him

[@leighanne3266]

And now we have one of his brightest law clerks up for nomination... His spirit lives on🇺🇲

[@huskerfaninNJ]

RIP. An honorable and decent man.

[@huskerfaninNJ]

John the Historian Good luck with that.

[@johnthehistorian2477]

+huskerfaninNJ Gay marriage harms someone else how ???

[@huskerfaninNJ]

JohntheHistorian I agree with you. It's one thing I don't agree with Scalia about. Marriage should be allowed for anybody who's committed to each other. But that still doesn't make him a horrible person like some people think, in my opinion.

[@readrothbard153]

JohntheHistorian Scalia didn't believe it harmed anyone

[@TheYoyozo]

This is the best channel on KZbin, possibly in the entire world. What awesome interviews and discussions!

[@thanksfernuthin]

Peter, you do such a great job. When will you write the book I demand you write? "The World According to the Smartest People I Ever Met" by Peter Robinson. A behind the scenes story of all of your interviews. To include your impressions of the people interviewed and what you personally gleaned from their points.

[@AndySpicer]

This is probably my 5th or 6th time watching this and it just as good as the first time. What a great conversation. I wish we still had Justice Scalia to listen to.

[@TheJohnCube]

What an amazing man

[@johnthehistorian2477]

+John Graves His Catholic priest son is a closet case.

[@mikevonsas]

Relax

[@KnowTrentTimoy]

Michael VonSas It's true and you know it.

[@5dmkiii60]

With all due credit given to the staggering brain power of the guests on "Uncommon Knowledge," I have to give props to the skill with which Mr. Robinson questions his guests. Mr. Robinson's intellect goes toe to toe with his, "synaptically blessed" guests. Not only are the set of questions he asks probing and intelligent, but they are organized in such as way as to not disrupt the logical flow of getting from point A to point B on the given topic. Mr. Robinson, in many ways, shows himself to be the equal of many of the "brain trust" gallery of intellectual stars he interviews. He's is both the perfect foil and sympathetic interrogator for the intellectual level of those he interviews. What an immensely enjoyable series this is; as much part due to the intelligence of what's asked by Mr. Robinson as to the responses to those probing questions by the guest.

[@RurikLoderr]

I miss this man. I didn't agree with him on everything, but I absolutely stand by his logic. His logic for everything he says has always been quite sound.

[@AshyKnucks]

Peter Robinson is one of the best interviewers I've ever had the pleasure of watching.

[@abellizandro8743]

Truly uncommon knowledge, and distinctive humility. Postmodernism has impacted every area of life. No absolutes , only a matter of interpretation to mean whatever comes to mind. Words have meaning, meaning has consequences

[@EuSeiT]

What a brilliant, wonderful mind. I am glad he wrote a book. I am also glad Gorsuch took his place: a very worthy Constitutionalist.

[@benmeltzer]

He's obviously a thoughtful person who takes his job seriously.

[@pamgessler5923]

I would have had to disagree with Justice Scalia on one thing. When he asked, "So, are we supposed to turn back legislation because it is, in our view, unConstitutional?", the answer should have been "Yes! Absolutely!" That is EXACTLY the job description of the Supreme Court. It is not to create law or find a new interpretation for the laws, but to contrast legislation with the Constitution. If the law is not Constitutional, it is illegal.

[@texomajohn2916]

I wish he could have lived forever

[@dukerwong3900]

Antonio Scalia is one of the absolutely best Supreme Court Justice who interprets the rules of the laws by the principals of the America's constitutions by the essence of the amendments with his unique depth of understanding of the rules of the laws and the sophisticated knowledge levels of the interpretation law skills. He doesn't interpret the laws by his own wishes, or others' wishes, by influences of ones', or trying to influence ones, or by the partial trend, or by certain fashions, or by tensed situations, but by his own adroit and very experienced law knowledges, by our own written Constitutions, by our own America's foundations, by his own America's patriotism of the recognitions. This is why he wins my respect. I believe that we are the country not govern by wishes, or ideologies of unknown, or fantacy of some imaginations, or other country's models. On the contrary, we are the country will only govern by the laws, because we are the country of the laws in its original nature. This is why when we are talking about the Roe V Wade, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional State Status in no way contradicted any specific provision of the Constitution. The right of privacy, whether it be founded in Fourteenth Amendment 's Concept of personal liberty, or, as destruct Court determined, in Ninth Amendment's reservation of the right to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. This was decisions by the Justice Harry Blackmun. According to this message then the funding to Parenthood will be absolutely wrong. Because, if this is totally up to women's own decisions and right to determine whether to terminate her pregnancy or not, then, if our own Gov't to fund to the Parenthood has been interfered the women's determination of the abortion decisions. Because The Parenthood's motivations are helping women to abort their own future babies, those leg kicking and heart beating own kind living and growing lives. Their operating funds are coming from the encouragement of our own Gov't, this is why I believe Gov't is interfered the women's own decisions and mislead women's own rights. Also because our Gov't only fund to the abortion supporters instead of helping both supporters' or opposers' organizations. This surely will often be conflicted or misunderstood by women's own will. This is why I believe this is against our own country's Constitutions and as well as the Justice Harry Blackmun's rules. Unless 2/3 of the Congress's votes, otherwise our country should follow up with the rules of the laws. Moreover, if we allow the cruelties of the abortion there, one day, we will let only tiny numbers of the American's here, who will be ones to stand up strongly to protect our own country -America patrioticly and loyally? If more terrorists come here, more Nazis come here, more dictatorship come here, where is America of the Capitalism system of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and constitutions? This is why I believe we must cherish our own kind of future generations for America's foundation, America's constitutions, principles and prosperity and we should never ignore it surely. The 2nd Amendment didn't say people shall have the right to keep & bear arms, even the Gov't shall not prevent the people from keeping & bearing arms. But rather that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I believe nothing will be more cleared that the laws of the United States has stated that we as American people will and shall have the full right to own and bear arms. If some of our Gov't servants don't like this laws or like to take away the right that constitutions give to people, they should follow up with the rules of the laws to acquire 2/3 of the votes from Congress to replace it, otherwise, the existing laws shall be strictly applied. Because we are the country of the laws. When we are talking about the constitutions are faded away...etc. I believe that the constitutions will always be there for us to follow without choices, because we are the country of the laws. Also because in front of the laws, we are equal. This is why the Constitutions were there, are there and will be there always as the rest of the world. It depends on our own principals of our own elected Gov't servants' America's patriotism. We want it be faded, it will be faded. If we don't, it will always be there for our country's prosperity, foundations of the Capitalism system of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and prosperity. This is why I believe Gov.Bush will be more than qualified President for our country's future and foundations and constitutions as wellas his own America's patriotism and loyalty and principles. Also because his own great proven successful governing leadership experiences which created massive jobs for Floridians to enjoy without worrying and even left over 9 billions dollars of the surplus for his successor's raining days. Moreover over, I believe the proven patriotic family background and experiences of the leadership are extremely important as a President of the United States of America. Because this will ensure our country in the right track for our country's own unique foundations of the Capitalism system of the freedoms and entrepreneurship and constitutions as well as his own convincing foriegn policy and strategies which has been accumulated years and years from his hard learnings from his well-known foriegn policy expert President Bush 41 and President Bush 43 and President Reagan's legacy. Most people who loves our çountry and country's own foundations surely will love President Reagan, President 41and President 43 in our Capitalism system country. Gov.Bush understands that only the strength will make the peace and the weakness will invite the attacks and invasions. I also appreciate his honesty and sincereness nature as well as his humbleness and responsibilities to his own family, country's goodness and American peoples. Because this surely will help our country's unity as well as the people.

[@brainboy109]

+Duker Wong , Who's Antonio Scalia?

[@thetomschaeffer]

What an incredible interview - thank you sir. And wow, what a loss of Justice Scalia.

[@cosmicallyderived]

Woooo, powerful articulation! Hits the nail right on the head what the controversy is: 11:24 "How do you draw the distinction between what is the assumptions that are in the service of the text and those that open the door wide to judicial interference or fiat?"

[@GuysCallMeShawna]

Easy. There is no such thing as judicial fiat because the judicial branch has no power to make law. Marbury v Madison discusses why the meaning of the constitution is fixed. Scalia is not a hero; he was a tyrant.

[@firingallcylinders2949]

One of the best Justices this country ever had

[@MrDanielWP]

That man was absolutely brilliant.

[@Mndy3714]

Thank you for uploading this. For too long I have had to hear people slam Justice Scalia as a "judicial activist," an "extremist," "crazy," and whatnot. Now people can watch this and see he is a reasonable man who just tries to do his job: making judgements based on what the Constitution actually says.

[@59gaperry]

This man was a national treasure.

[@zacharybarcinas9503]

Mr Robinson is well prepared good job

[@fortinbras47]

Excellent interview

[@TomKaren94]

What a brilliant man... and what a loss this past year.

[@Aaronisification]

So much appreciation for this man.

[@bunkerbill]

I love uncommon knowledge!

[@theteckman]

Congratulations on a prestigious guest.

[@whateverman13]

Rest In Peace Justice Scalia

[@perfectsense3240]

RIP Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia

[@m14lvr]

What an epic man.

[@chodeshadar18]

I think my IQ rose 10 points just listening to this conversation!

[@juancpgo]

His position is so reasonable, and even obvious. It's simply the position of transparently and honestly respecting democracy-instead of trying to distort it to suit your own personal feelings. It's sad and despicable that it's not the mainstream legal position. How do we change that? How come we allowed reason to be the losing side?

[@SoNoFTheMoSt]

I really respect this interviewer, i would love to see him interview people he doesnt agree with, im assuming his method wouldnt change.

[@LectronCircuits]

Excellent interview, will be a classic. Cheers!

[@michaelw2838]

This man is good and makes sense. That is probably why liberals hated him. Because they would put emotions above rationality.

[@purpleflurp1197]

+thedhbusiness As you said Religion is false, we think it's true. Opinions are everywhere. Some are true, some aren't. That's yours, and that's mine. I think he's rational, you think he isn't. I'm not trying to be mean but if a Democrat liberal gets in he will pass things that I think is not rational, and think he/she is not rational. It goes both ways. I'm not trying to stomp on your opinion tho.

[@LifeX2Find]

+thedhbusiness You might want to re-think what you've just stated. Who cares who or what you disagree with or if you think religion is false. Separation of Church and State is nothing more than to keep gov. out of the church, period! Nothing more, nothing less, so your mindless opinions are worthless, Know-It-All!!

[@dribblesg2]

+thedhbusiness If you want to disagree with the man fine, but to pretend he was an irrational bible basher is pathetic. Name me one scriptural passage he ever based a single ruling on. Should be easy if it was a 'majority of his rulings'. The truth is his rulings were always based on the US constitution, at times even against his own personal leanings. Yes, he personally disagreed with homosexuality. But professionally he repeatedly said that he had no issues with states voting in same-sex marriage laws. In fact, he said that the same-sex debate highlighted America 'at its best'; (ie as an example of democracy in action). What he objected to was the supreme court intervening and over-turning the democratic process of individual states, especially by assuming the prerogative of re-interpreting the constitution however they wished. You're fine with this because you agree with the result. However, if there are ever 9 ultra-conservative judges on the bench in the future who want to overturn state anti-discrimination laws, or even federal abortion laws etc despite the protest of the American people, maybe you'll appreciate constitutionally principled people like Scalia a bit more.

[@LifeX2Find]

Good post, Daniel Shore!

[@ZishPOE]

Daniel Shore Pretend he was a bible basher? That makes no sense. I said his principles were based on the bible. You say he never voted on them, then you give an example of where he DID vote based on them. You see, Scalia and his conservative constituents love to shout "States rights!" if the state is prohibiting something they disagree with. But this is why we have a Supreme Court, to decide if there are rights which aren't federally protected, that should be. If the Supreme Court did not function and provide federal oversight over states, imagine the things states would still outlaw - every dark, disgusting, shameful thing in our country's history. Occasionally there rises an issue where the minority view (homosexuals wanting to marry) is forced to choose between enduring their plight, or leaving. Heavy-Right states would never approve gay marriage, but as a nation we overwhelmingly support it. This is precisely the purpose of the Supreme Court, to interpret these rights as qualifying for the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. The constitution cannot be subjected to a strict interpretationalist view to the extent of Scalia's - our culture has evolved unbelievably since the drafting of the document. We cannot allow an 18th century document written by people who lived before electricity to strictly govern people in the 21st century, it just isn't practical. As far as your hypothetical - what you propose is illogical - the Justices are appointed based on approval of Congress. If we ever end up with 9 conservative justices, there won't BE any protesting outcry from the public, because that would require them to have suddenly converted to a majority-conservative voter base(which I both suspect and hope will never happen).

[@anthonydavidek4651]

Roe v Wade talk happens around 21:00

[@gdavidcobb]

A master interviewer interviewing an American intellectual legal giant, and both of them at the very top of their games. Utterly inspiring.

[@filosofiadetalhista]

I'm very progressive and I'm getting to know Antonin Scalia. (I am not from the US.) He is knowledgeable, argues well, and seems reasonable. I will look further into his work in the next few days. The questions he and the other Supreme Court Justices have to deal with are very difficult!

[@fifthgear93]

That discussion right here looks so classy they should've drank whiskey instead of water.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

+John the Historian and? he was right to leave capital punishment to democratic vote, Would you want judges to be law makers?

[@johnthehistorian2477]

+John Isaac Felipe No to cruel and unusual punishment. Stop torture. The USA signed the Geneva Convention.

[@johnthehistorian2477]

+John Isaac Felipe Obergefell is now law by the SCOTUS. Gay marriage harms someone else how ??? Never has the bible been in the constitution. Never did know which bible to use. No to theocracy. No to an established church.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Why can't you stick to a point you nitiwt? you provide constant conjectures upon conjectures . Here's why, It dismisses the autonomy of a religious body! have you heard of the first ammendment, particularly religious freedom?! the church should be allowed to dictate the terms of their events, If gays want to get married then they can find a willing church, like a Presbyterian one, don't force other church, like catholic or orthodox, who aren't willing to have one to go against their benign beliefs! the federal government shouldn't have a say on these matters! JohntheHistorian

[@johnthehistorian9889]

+John Isaac Felipe It is not 1791. That constitution said slavery was ok and that women had not rights. The world moves on. The world is getting smaller. One can get abortion pills in Canada or Europe. One can have a Gay marriage in many countries.

[@SacredMagic13679]

I hope that, if an afterlife exists, Justice Scalia is able to see what his judicial philosophy has brought to fruition in the United States.

[@netster007z]

The same media explosion that allows us to watch hour-long interviews with Justice Antonin Scalia also allows people to watch only superficial programming. Sadly, the result seems to be a super-informed minority and an uninformed majority.

[@11antun]

what a genius two man! Lord give Justice Scalia eternal peace by You! and Mr. Robinson Your blessings!

[@jrae50021]

Judge Scalia's death is like an episode from "House of Cards"! Poindexter said he had met Scalia once before, briefly in Washington, when he was there with a sports group and the justice agreed to meet them. He said he invited Scalia to the ranch on the suggestion of a mutual friend, a lawyer, who came with Scalia. (Who is the lawyer?) He declined to identify the lawyer or any of the other guests, except to say that they were "very substantial business people," but not big names in politics.(Substantial business people are bigger than Political names) "There is no political angle here," he said. "It was strictly a group of friends sympathetic to the justice's views." (What is the need to mention this? Seems like an odd thing to say.) After Scalia’s body was discovered, the ranch alerted the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting the justices when they travel outside Washington, although Van Etten had not noticed them around Scalia at the ranch. “He was very unassuming. He didn’t want his entourage of marshals to stay here with him,” Van Etten said. (US marshals are RESPONSIBLE for protecting him and yet Van Etten claims he was very unassuming?) Poindexter had originally invited Scalia to bring his son, and when he couldn’t come at the last minute, the justice brought the attorney friend instead, who alerted the family to his death, Van Etten said. John Marlan Poindexter (born August 12, 1936) is a retired United States naval officer and Department of Defense official. He was Deputy National Security Advisor and National Security Advisor for the Reagan administration. He was convicted in April 1990 of multiple felonies as a result of his actions in the Iran-Contra affair, but his convictions were reversed on appeal in 1991. More recently, he served a brief stint as the director of the DARPA Information Awareness Office for the George W. Bush administration. Poindexter went on to serve in the Reagan administration as Military Assistant, from 1981 to 1983, as Deputy National Security Advisor from 1983 to 1985,[3] and as National Security Advisor from 1985 to 1986. From 1983 to 1985, Poindexter was responsible for leading and managing the National Security Council staff as chairman of the Crisis Pre-planning Group. As National Security Advisor, Vice Admiral Poindexter was responsible for providing recommendations to the President on national security, foreign policy and defense policy. Major events in which he played a significant role for the executive branch included the Strategic Defense Initiative, Operation Urgent Fury, the Achille Lauro incident, Operation El Dorado Canyon (in response to Libyan terrorist attacks), and the Reykjavík Summit with the Soviets. Late in 2001, upon the recommendation of Science Applications International Corporation executive Brian Hicks, then Vice President Dick Cheney recommended Admiral Poindexter to head a separate anti-terrorist office and serve under US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. (Poindexter's profile doesn't exactly fit with a Supreme Court Judge of this caliber!) 'He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court'. The court term that ended in June brought him a series of defeats, most notably on gay marriage and President Barack Obama's healthcare law, which left Scalia especially outraged and believing he had had his worst term ever. On the law, he took special pride in Sixth Amendment cases he helped develop that changed sentencing rules and that involved the right of defendants to be confronted by the witnesses against them. But perhaps his greatest achievement came in a 2008 case in which he authored the majority opinion when the court ruled 5-4 that the US Constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms extended to an individual right to keep guns in the home. In one of his most passionate stands, Scalia argued the right to an abortion never appears in the US Constitution, and that the Supreme Court's historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that created a woman's constitutional right to an abortion was wrongly decided. He explained his position on abortion in a 1992 dissent: 'The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it and the long-standing American traditions of American society have permitted (abortion) to be legally proscribed.' He urged Christians to stand up for their religious beliefs and was in the majority when the court ruled in 2014 that privately held corporations could mount religious objections to an Obamacare provision that required employers to provide health insurance that included contraception coverage.

[@jimmysaechao]

Ive just got into law as an interest and This man was the most important justice ever

[@jorgejohnson451]

In the end, God’s justice prevails. May He mercy on us all.

[@stevenkh1]

You misheard him. He said, "we've sort of gone off the rails with regard to the Constitution." He said his colleagues (the Dems) believe words & meanings of the past are up to the Courts, and this movement is called the Living Constitution and is about 50 years old. He said, "I hate it!", and his belief is the Courts need to go back to the Founders and the documents (or law enacted by the people) to derive meaning - NOT what the meaning is today.

[@josefschmeau4682]

I would love to see an interview of Mr. Robinson concerning his take on the people he has interviewed over the years.

[@Isabella66Gracen]

I really admired this great man. Heaven help them all if there was "foul play" involved in ending his life. Can't imagine the court will ever see his equal.

[@danieljakubik3428]

Excellent!

[@eaglemri]

RIP GOD BLESS YOU..

[@Earej]

+eaglemri There's no god. It's a human invention. Almost every believer gets indoctrinated at a young age; nobody starts believing in god as an adult.

[@BenjaminWirtz]

+Earej Why are atheists so often bitter and want to bring down others in their misery? Also "nobody starts believing in god as an adult." that is not true, I know many such cases.

[@Earej]

***** Is it bitter to complain if irrational people are making decisions for all of us? Really?

[@eaglemri]

+Godless Libertarian if you wish not to believe in God...remember it's your GOD given right.

[@Adam-bq2vw]

+Earej That's absolutely false. What do you think a "born again" Christian is?

[@gerardsheridan5525]

Watching rhis in 2020. What a wise and persuasive prson. An elegant intellect.

[@jacobzaranyika9334]

Interesting.... I will watch this later. Thank you🙏

[@ddavid122]

This Byzantine process... 😂 This man had a way with words.

[@billyjaymz]

Rest in peace.

[@economicfreedom8591]

The difference is that today, any viewer can CHOOSE to move from the uninformed majority to the super-informed minority. Before the digital/alternative media explosion, this was impossible. Keep in mind that the majority through history has ALWAYS been uninformed. Progress and change come from the minority, not the majority.

[@Mixmastermehdi]

Do any of you guys think he was murdered? I mean it was sketchy the fact that there was no autopsy.

[@monseigneurmonseigneur7722]

James Dean He was found with a pillowcase over his head.

[@PDubbler]

I suppose giving liberals the chance to replace a conservative supreme court justice is a good enough reason to do it before the election. Gives em something solid to campaign for.

[@PDubbler]

Besides, you don't know if your crew will be in office after 2016 so it's better to pull something like this off before any possible transition of power.

[@thamir21]

+James Dean +A Most He was murdered. Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head in a room under surveillance but the cameras were conveniently not working that weekend and of course no autopsy was preformed. More damning proof is in this Wikileaks email from Killary Clinton's campaign manager John Podestra: wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008#efmAEQAEZ The term "wet works" is a military term for assassination. It is no joke if you've ever been in the military or worked for an intelligence agency. Here's a wiki page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetwork The email was sent on February 9, 2016, Scalia officially died on the night of February 12 or the morning of February 13, 2016. So this email was sent three days before he died. Scalia's ranch in Texas is across the street from a vineyard. The party he had at his place the evening before he died was a pool party at his pool. Proof he had a pool party the evening before he died: www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop This article contain an image of Scalia's pool and confirms he found dead with a pillow OVER his head: nypost.com/2016/02/15/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head-ranch-owner/ Google image of Scalia's ranch with location of vineyard: i.sli.mg/ARnOrl.png The email of course mentions this pool party by the vineyard 3 days before his death. It was planned. Email proof Podestra was personally monitoring media reports on Scalia's death: wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6732 The campaign had him killed b/c he is the only judge on the Court defending the 2nd Amendment. Killary plans to use an executive order to impose gun control when she's president and she needs Scalia out of the way to do that. Email proof Killary plans to use an executive order to implement gun control: wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1509 Video of Chelsea Clinton says gun control possible now SPECIFICALLY because Scalia is dead: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lX6yeXtqfNeFj6M

[@xMooshy]

lol do you really believe big media? do you really think they aren't capable of distorting the facts? would they sell out their party ? nope.

[@Matiyahu]

The transience of language is a huge issue in my field of Biblical studies. It's amazing that conservative Biblical scholars hold to an approach to Scripture which is similar to Saclia's (textualists generally) approach to the constitution.

[@Charity-vm4bt]

He is a biblically based believer.

[@davo171]

Tonight Antonin smiles. Rightly so.

[@zacharybarcinas9503]

Justice Scalia is a very impressive Justice, myself understand and agree

[@trudixie56]

He will be greatly missed!

[@Monorprise]

It is rather difficult to imagine there being such a thing as law, which men can redefine on a case by case basis, as modern judges do in trying cases of law. What that means is, if the same law permitted or prohibited something before it MUST permit or prohibit the same thing today until such time that legislators have changed the text of the law. To do anything else is to change the law on the bench no matter how well 'reasoned' or 'justified' that act might be. The fact is you gave a different standard of justice OVER the law to a case today than was originally handed out, and has been handed out for centuries under the same law. That is the definition of change, with all its meaningful and practical effects. The only problem is a judge not an elected legislator did it without the consent of the governed.

[@KRGruner]

He was a national treasure.

[@Alan.Endicott]

42:26 This clarifies the 9th Amendment very well.

[@patrickgraham6306]

This doesn't have to do with Reading Law, but you can see Scalia's great knowledge and love of Catholicism.

[@johnthehistorian9889]

+Patrick Graham Vatican III now. Let the nuns and priests marry.

[@deusimperator]

He is more catholic that the pope

[@sethfarmer590]

I've noticed that judges tend to be Catholic.

[@patrickbyrne7882]

Why is there "context" suggested on all of Scalia's videos???

[@kennethklemm6165]

rest in peace faithful servant of our constitution

[@stacyking9628]

And then he went to that ranch.

[@marty2k5]

Who's watching this in 2018 after Gorsuch is in and Kavanaugh is about to get in?

[@TheAMW]

Gorsuch and Scalia were confirmed w no issues. Kavenaugh will always have a dark cloud over his head. Another judge should have been chosen in light of all the controversy

[@dukerwong3900]

The Justice Scalia is surprisingly straight forward yet very righteous of the law interpretation understanding. If we listen carefully, he is absolutely right about the laws by our own constitutions. I believe the constitution should be absolutely supercede anything, but to follow up to it. Because this is the rules of the laws. The Supreme Court judges can only devide the wrong doings from the right according to the existing laws, instead of rephrase or adding the words or twist the words, then to make the judgement. Because if it's not what the existing constitutions says, it's violating the laws. Because this is what the laws for and made the rules for us and include the Justice Dept. to follow too. When he talks about the death sentence, I also agree with him that. Because we would rather see more innocent people be killed by criminals without mercy or the killers and murderer should be punished acording to their crimes justified. I believe justice Scalia stands by the principles of America's foundation and symptoms of the Capitalism system of the natures of the freedoms and entrepreneurship firmly by what he believes in by his knowledge of the laws and talks by his heart of America's patriotism. He can certainly choose to get by and knowingly wrong by closing the eyes. However, he chooses not doing that instead of sharing his views and stands up for America's prosperity and spirit. I respect that. This is why I trust him that he will never replace America's constitutions by the Sharia Laws.

[@antiantiderivative]

He stands by his own opinions, not the Constitution

[@billyethornton]

We lost a real American when this man was murdered....

[@patternabstractions]

It seems we are heading towards an oligarchy. It behooves us to watch a little less t.v. and come up to speed on issues and discuss them. If we do not have an educated and responsible population then we will find ourselves with less and less freedom.

[@user-qv5bw5bv3g]

cool video rewatche it 10 times

[@carlossmith4927]

God bless Justice Scalia. We need you back!

[@P0RKINS2]

Excellent interview. Glad President Trump was able to nominate 2 more originalists to the Court. Will have to get a copy of the book.

[@Visfen]

*-It seems ;) I've given up the idea on a well educated and responsible population long ago. I think what we must now fight for is ways for those of us who are, to live separate from those who are not.

[@legatejakius5386]

Antonin Scalia A man so legally adept, it justified political assassination.

[@periechontology]

Scalia's job was neither to justify or to condemn political assasination. His job was to say what the Constitution says. If we don't like political assassination we can make a federal law banning it. We are not however to claim that the Constitution bans it. Heck the Constitution doesn't even ban murder of one individual by another. It's job is not to house laws on every wrong in existence.

[@josiahjohnson1833]

He was referring to the idiotic idea that Obama had him assassinated. That comment had nothing to do with the legality of political assassinations, lol

[@bighands69]

Antonin Scalia was almost 80 so come on guys

[@jacobfetzer715]

He was found dead with a pillow on his face. Sounds like natural causes to me...

[@johngraham2543]

There's a part of Scalia's philosophy that I'm a bit stumped on. (Btw. I definitely agree with general originalism and also am a huge fan of Scalia and Thomas, though side note I haven't ready any of his books yet so idk if my confusion is addressed in those. But considering the aspects of intent. Scalia says that the intent of lawmakers doesn't matter. That the only thing that matters is the words on the page. But isn't that contradictory to the philosophy of original "intent" or meaning? That would be a strict constructionist view, which Scalia doesn't agree with. He agrees with the idea that one must look back at what was the words were thought to meant. Which inherently requires looking at intent of meaning, doesn't it? I think there really is a deep debate between strict constructionism and originalism. The living constitution view is easily disregarded, but there is some complications between the two more conservative philosophies which I plan to read more on. (Also. Is there really much of a difference between those two philosophies of strict constructionism and originalism? Was Scalia right about that? A lot of complications and questions)

[@Beebop121]

I am a little confused on his position on intention vs. letter of the law. He says for current laws, we cannot determine the intent of the legislators, so we should follow the language. But he also says we should understand the Constitution as it was understood by it's writers. How do we understand the two different positions?

[@anythingafter10]

@8:00: "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" : "the exception that proves the rule"!