# Justice Scalia and Originalism



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

I was recently searching around for some other stuff on YouTube and I came across this interview of Justice Antonin Scalia with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes from a year or so ago.

Some of you already know how much of geek I am when it comes to the courts, law, the Constitution, etc. As such, I'm personally a big fan of Scalia's method of Constitutional interpretation, and this video is a great introduction to his Originalist views and how they compare to other methods, like the "living constitution" method, used by activist judges. I particularly like his take on how the Constitution is meant to "impede change" and how teachers who preach that the constitution is a "living breathing document" are in part preaching--often, IMO, out of ignorance-- a viewpoint, not a fact.

Anyways, for those of us who hold the Constitution as one of our most sacred documents, I think this is a must-watch whether you agree with his views or not, and a great intro on how he views that most sacred of documents.

(Parts 1 and 2 are mainly about what I'm talking about above, Parts 3 and 4 are more biographical.)

Pt. 1: 



Pt. 2: 



Pt. 3: 



Pt. 4:


----------



## Hawk19 (Jan 9, 2009)

Nice post. I love the part where he points out, want to change something? "Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society- pass a law." That's how we got the 13th amendment, incidentally my favorite.


----------



## 8MORE (Nov 25, 2008)

I took the time to watch the interview when it aired and again tonight,( Thankyou Obie). Justice Scalia is one of the people I admire, A humble man from New York who has stood by for what is right.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Another good video; Scalia's point to close out Part II (exchange begins @ 4:20) is awesome.
Part I: YouTube - Activist vs Originalist - Part I
Part II: YouTube - Activist vs Originalist - Part II


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2009)

I pray Scalia remains on the Court for a long time. Here is the written version of his thoughts:

I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody - judges, professors, lawyers - who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I'm not a "strict constructionist," despite the introduction. I don't like the term "strict construction." I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description "strict." I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.

This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I'm asked when I've given a talk like this a question from the back of the room - "Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?" - as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people - "When did you first start eating human flesh?"

Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that, not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalist. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn't think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted.
Justice Scalia Discusses Constitutional Interpretation


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Not Scalia, but this is one of the best arguments I have ever seen for Original Intent vs. Living Document theory:
YouTube - Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira
While it's a bit dry, IMO, ANYONE who considers the Constitution a sacred document should watch this video.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2009)

It is amazing the debates going on among people today. There is almost like a revival on both ends of the political spectrum. Things are coming to a head. Change is no longer just the talk of extremist. I want change (not Deval/Obama change). I also don't want to see any violence occur. Hopefully, politicians with some balls will rise to the challenge. There are many citizens who care and have a more orthodox view of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. The problem is that many of them do not get of there asses and take part in the political process. The moonbats are busing voters in and knocking on doors. We need to start doing that.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2009)

Not to sound cold, but barring any unforeseen disasters or unexpected deaths, it looks like if Barry gets the chance to appoint someone to the USSC during his one term, it's going to be a one-for-one deal; one liberal replacing another liberal.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> Not to sound cold, but barring any unforeseen disasters or unexpected deaths, it looks like if Barry gets the chance to appoint someone to the USSC during his one term, it's going to be a one-for-one deal; one liberal replacing another liberal.


 I'm still holding out hope that the 41 Republicans will do their job and stop any moonbat appointments. Problem is, I don't know if we can count on the two from Maine and Specter not jump off the party wagon again.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I'm still holding out hope that the 41 Republicans will do their job and stop any moonbat appointments. Problem is, I don't know if we can count on the two from Maine and Specter not jump off the party wagon again.


Look at the law of averages of the most vulnerable members of the court;

John Paul Stevens - Age 89: Again, not to sound cold, but he's on borrowed time, to say the least.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Age 76, with cancer: Would you underwrite a life insurance policy on her?

The Republicans need only to object to anyone with more liberal views than those two, which isn't exactly a tall order.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> Look at the law of averages of the most vulnerable members of the court;
> 
> John Paul Stevens - Age 89: Again, not to sound cold, but he's on borrowed time, to say the least.
> 
> ...


And the bonus is that the conservative appointees will be there a while. While Scalia is 72, Thomas is only 60, Alito is only 59, and Roberts is 54.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

MSP75 said:


> It is amazing the debates going on among people today. There is almost like a revival on both ends of the political spectrum. Things are coming to a head. Change is no longer just the talk of extremist. I want change (not Deval/Obama change). I also don't want to see any violence occur. Hopefully, politicians with some balls will rise to the challenge. There are many citizens who care and have a more orthodox view of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. The problem is that many of them do not get of there asses and take part in the political process. The moonbats are busing voters in and knocking on doors. We need to start doing that.


People who give a damn about our country, liberty and constitutional government need to get to a '912 Project' meeting in their area. People are pissed and they are taking action. Participate, or sit on your a$$ and be a slave.

9-12 Project


----------



## Loyal (Oct 21, 2007)

Obie, thank you. Very thought provoking . I am now a fan of Justice Antonin Scalia. Breyer and the other "activists" are the type of people who have hurt this country over the past 45 yrs or so...apologists, whiners, pathetic liberals...parasites.. ebonics...what happened to character and responsibility ??? Justice Scalia is old school and pragmatic, Breyer is as soft as melting ice cream..


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2009)

Loyal said:


> Obie, thank you. Very thought provoking . I am now a fan of Justice Antonin Scalia. Breyer and the other "activists" are the type of people who have hurt this country over the past 45 yrs or so...apologists, whiners, pathetic liberals...parasites.. ebonics...what happened to character and responsibility ??? Justice Scalia is old school and pragmatic, Breyer is as soft as melting ice cream..


An argument could be made for either Scalia or Roberts being the most brilliant legal mind on the USSC, but I'm partial to Scalia, simply because he's written more opinions, and therefore we have a better look into his mind.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Best and most complete quote I have ever heard on originalism, from Mark Levin:


> "The conservative is an originalist, for he believes that much like a contract the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation to the next, by retraining the present generation from societal expirimentation and government excess. There really is no other standard by which the Constitution can be interpreted without abandoning it's underlying principles all together. If the Constitution's meaning can be erased or re-written and the framers intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution, but is instead a concoction of political expedience that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it."


If it wasn't so long and I could use it as my sig, I would.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Its sad that the Supreme Court sits on such a narrow precipice between logic and reason and unbridled judicial experimentation. A 5-4 decision on two important 2nd amendment cases does give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

It seems like we are one vote away from a true "People's Democracy".


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Killjoy said:


> Its sad that the Supreme Court sits on such a narrow precipice between logic and reason and unbridled judicial experimentation. A 5-4 decision on two important 2nd amendment cases does give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
> 
> It seems like we are one vote away from a true "People's Democracy".


It gives me this sick feeling that the court will turn into an Anthem-esque "Council of Elders"...


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

For a legal junkie like me, the following video of Justice Scalia and Breyer is awesomesauce. Not only a great insight on to what the two of them feel is the proper role of the judiciary, but the banter between the two of them shows that the barbs are left in the opinions.

On Capitol Hill, The Stephen and Nino Show Wows 'Em
By Andrew Cohen

_On Wednesday, Justices Breyer and Scalia chatted with the Senate Judiciary Committee about the role of judges and the meaning of the Constitution
_









They came. They kibbitzed. They tossed out fluffy platitudes about judicial restraint and constitutional boundaries. They patiently humored their eager hosts on the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were yet again the smartest guys in the room. Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, graying veterans of hundreds of "What's the Judiciary Like?" speeches off the Court, sure gave good witness Wednesday when they came to Capitol Hill to tell lawmakers more about "The Role of Judges Under the Constitution of the United States."

On Capitol Hill, The Stephen and Nino Show Wows 'Em - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic

Video of the event; Scalia's take on how we fail to attempt to understand the Constitution and how a constitution is nothing without believing in it. The whole video is awesome, but if you can't watch all two and half hours, watch Scalia starting at 17:30. You realize how much of a genius he is.

Constitutional Role of Judges - C-SPAN Video Library

Oh, and check out 1:06 if you want to see Dianne Feinstein make an ass out herself--on a very basic point that even a 1st year law student is aware of.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Video of the event; Scalia's take on how we fail to attempt to understand the Constitution and how a constitution is nothing without believing in it. The whole video is awesome, but if you can't watch all two and half hours, watch Scalia starting at 17:30. You realize how much of a genius he is.


Genius is an understatement. I was somewhat disappointed when he wasn't appointed Chief Justice after Rehnquist.

Useless trivia: Chief Justice Rehnquist's son taught at the high school that threw me out, although I never had him for a class. He eventually followed in dad's footsteps and went to law school;

James Rehnquist - Goodwin Procter LLP



OfficerObie59 said:


> Oh, and check out 1:06 if you want to see Dianne Feinstein make an ass out herself--on a very basic point that even a 1st year law student is aware of.


Awesome....I've never spent a day in law school, and I knew that Constitutional protections only apply to government action.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> Useless trivia: Chief Justice Rehnquist's son taught at the high school that threw me out, although I never had him for a class. He eventually followed in dad's footsteps and went to law school;
> 
> James Rehnquist - Goodwin Procter LLP


Chief Justice Rehnquist was initially appointed to the court by Nixon and elevated to Chief in 1986. He son graduated in 1987...

God, the shit you must take being a Supreme Court Justice's kid...you do a good degree of analyzing Supreme Court cases in fist year con law and civ pro--I can't imagine what that must have been like to have to read a decision your dad wrote and then have to critique it in class.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> God, the shit you must take being a Supreme Court Justice's kid...you do a good degree of analyzing Supreme Court cases in fist year con law and civ pro--I can't imagine what that must have been like to have to read a decision your dad wrote and then have to critique it in class.


My brother did have the son for a class (he managed to graduate from the school that threw me out), and he (Rehnquist) said once he hadn't gone to law school at the time for that very reason.....talk about huge shoes to fill.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Good interview with Scalia on last week's Fox News Sunday. He explains the originalist philosiphy quite well.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-n...tonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country


----------

