Sunday, April 27, 2008

Antonin Scalia

Appointed by President Reagan to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986, Antonin Scalia is controversial, combative and unapologetic about his conservative views. Justice Scalia is an "originalist" - he believes his job on the court is to interpret the Constitution according to the original intentions of the men who wrote it more than 200 years ago. Lesley Stahl interviews the justice and his wife Maureen.

Antonin Scalia
Rate this segment:

Average (Not Rated)

0.0 stars

INSIGHT


Fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is proud to call him a friend >> Watch Clip







Justice Scalia's working class roots. >> Watch Clip





Comments

Sound off on this segment. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

1
I respect Mr. Scalia's preservation of our constitution. To many liberals pass laws that are in direct contrast to our constitution only to use law enforcement and the lower courts to extort money from the American public. We should start drug testing all law inforcement and hold them accountable for there actions instead of sweeping it under the carpet.
Posted by nitro69icon on Sun, Apr 27, 2008 8:06 PM ET
2
(contrast) -contradiction #1
Posted by nitro69icon on Sun, Apr 27, 2008 8:08 PM ET
3
Your efforts to try and put a human face on Justice Scalia don't change the reality that he is an idealogue whose backward views through rose colored glasess have left a 21st century country with a 19th century body of law. Small wonder he doesn't recognize the country behind the Constitution. America has not moved away from him, but it is he who has moved away by standing still.
Posted by miketotaleclipse02 on Sun, Apr 27, 2008 11:37 PM ET
4
Our country is very fortunate to have a Supreme Court justice who generously educates law students and others about the basis of his decisions with wisdom and a dash of humor. I notice his careful listening. And his remarkable memory. I have no doubt he enjoys his work. I saw him take on the ACLU and Justice Breyer in lengthy debates on law and pummel them with his imposing intellect and deconstructions of their positions. It appeared so easy to him. We need more like him.
Posted by roboslater on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 12:14 AM ET
5
I'm sorry you think the country shouldn't have a constitution that means something. Either it means exactly what it meant at the time it was written or it means nothing a all. Either you change it by the process of amendment or you reinterpret it to mean whatever the whim of the moment would want, rendering it absent of meaning or purpose. There isn't a lot of middle ground here.
Posted by fred.heiser@sbcglobal.net on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 12:29 AM ET
6
You can disagree with this man intellectually but listening to his views on torture in the context of the Constitution's prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment" should give a person pause as to what make this man tick. This issue is not like deciding on an issue dealing with the interstate commerce. It goes basically beyond the law into basic ethics and to what we are as a country. Fortunately our Constitution stands firmly against sadistic treatment of our "enemies". What is frightening about this man is the shallow and brutal reasoning he employs, trying to split hairs between torture v. punishment. Common sense tells you torture, ethics aside, is employed to get information or to force behavior. Employing extremely painful physical and mental force, with no intention of eliciting any kind of cooperation, is sadistic punishment. And that was the situation in the camp at Guantanamo on which the Court was deciding the issue. His smug assertion that he’s simply right regardless of what anyone thinks makes him a very dangerous person to have on the Court.
Posted by jeff_conn2004 on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 1:34 AM ET
7
I hate people who advocate breaking with human rights. I hate this "justice." I hate that he has judicial power in the USA. Such self-righteous people should be deprived of public jobs of such importance. Why does he believe in democracy and the constitution when he is the one who overrode democracy in the 2000 election? I guess the correct answer of an impartial judge is "get over it." He is the type of person that makes me reconsider whether capital punishment should be wholly abolished.
Posted by siffreinrey on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 1:38 AM ET
8
Bravo #4. Couldn't have said it better myself. I immigrated to the United states because of your constitution - the bill of rights. Freedom! We need people like Scalia on the Supreme Court to safeguard our freedoms, not communists. The more of his kind the better for my freedom. Anyone disagreeing, like #3 take a hike and settle in Tibet. The Chinese will take care of you.
Posted by smvl on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 1:39 AM ET
9
I can't believe Justice Scalia's contention that he is an "Originalist." So many of his opinions have been PRO-Police State and Anti-Freedom that I have a hard time accepting that view. I have to wonder exactly what part of "Free" he does not understand. It seems that many have forgotten that government is an agreement between those who are governed and those who were elected by them, to govern them. And too many have forgotten that the spirit of the law is much more important than the letter. And too many seem to have forgotten from where the power of those laws emanates - the PEOPLE. I, for one, want my country back from the elitists who have hijacked it. Write - in Jesse Ventura and Willie Nelson in '08.
Posted by no1_2blame on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 1:42 AM ET
10
I'm wondering why you characterize Scalia as "controversial." Ginsburg is far more that. Scalia is just a solid constitutional jurist and a good guy. Guess some people can't handle that.
Posted by livingwaterspastor on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 2:54 AM ET
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright/IP Policy Terms of Service Help
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our » Privacy Policy