Charlie Rose

William DePaulo  07/27/2008 09:25 AM Report

Scalia's general invocation of "originalism", as though everything can be gleaned from the immutable text of the Constitution itself, is contradicted by that same document. And the corrolary claim that judge-made rights are, by definition improper and anti-democratic,is equally baseless.

Specifically, the Ninth Amendment explicitly rejects the idea that rights need to be enumerated in the Constitution itself to be valid: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Moreover, the "originalist" dogma simply disregards the wholesale rewriting of the Constitution occasioned by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment which made persons born in any state citizens of the US and extended to them all of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and authorized appropriate legislation to enforce those rights. So which "original" are we to follow? 1789's or 1868's?

Lastly, the "original" authors intended to be flexible, i.e., mutable. What else could be meant by "due process." That notion had evolved from time immemorial in English common law. Are we to suppose that the framers, brilliant as they were, adopted the most mutable body of law in history, but simultaneously chose to freeze it in place forever?

A recent dialogue with James Madison on the Fourth Amendment, made possible by TTIP (time travel internet protocol) makes the author's intent clear.

Q. Mr. Madison, do you believe that a warrant must issue prior to the interception of cell phone conversations?

A. What's a cell phone?

Q. You know, a telephone with no wires.

A. What's a telephone?

Q. Well, it's like telegraph but with audible voice messages instead of dots and dashes.

A. What's a telegraph.

Q. Come on, you know, those wires strung out alongside the railroad lines that let people communicate at both ends.

A. What's a railroad?

Q. Sort of like a steam boat but running on rails rather than in a canal.

A. What's a steam boat?

Q. I tell you what, Mr. President, I think you've explained more than we ever anticipated. And, by the way, thanks for the greatest legal-political document in all human history.

Rick Sheeley  07/12/2008 09:59 AM Report

The balance of power, the debate, disagreement, point, counter-point. All the replies once again confirm that we continue to live out the ideas and dreams of the Constitution everyday. That's a great thing.

Oh, Mr. Rose, thanks for being the best interviewer of your generation. Only a rose could have drawn in such a bee, and made him hum for all of us to see......

Haz  06/29/2008 10:25 PM Report

Even though I don't agree with Justice Scalia's philosophy on con law, you've got to respect the man holding his ground and performing his duties as faithfully as he possibly can. I enjoyed his opinions and sound reasoning, though he can of course be over the top, which is unfortunately provides the fodder for his ridicule. I agree with him that a lot of our grievances should go to the legislature, though he seemed to backpedal on that commitment in the recent DC gun decision!

aTypicalProgressive  06/29/2008 09:38 AM Report

I commend Charlie Rose on another fine interview.<br><br>

I disagree with those who feel Charlie should have been tougher on Scalia. Charlie is tough enough but not all interviews need to be interrogations. By allowing Scalia to feel more comfortable, he revealed more about himself. Discretion or judgment is the better part of valor.<br><br>

Scalia's emphasis on originalism shows his failure to understand the evolution and progression of societies.<br><br>

Separation of powers is a valuable part of our Constitution. However, Scalia's criticism that laymen feel the best parts of the Constitution are protection against illegal seizures, Freedom of Speech and other freedoms indicates Scalia's failure to understand laymen's thinking. Laymen comprise the overwhelming majority of a population.<br><br>

Well done Charlie and I hope you interview the other eight justices in the same format this summer during the recess. Nine interviews would make a great series on our Supreme Court.<br><br>

Not buying it  06/29/2008 04:54 AM Report

If I were looking at a used vehicle and the seller had the same facial expressions as Scalia does in much of this video, I would walk away. However, even if there were no video, the man is not credible. A man who is regularly ridiculed in world opinion, suddenly has to dump votes because of world ridicule- Don't be silly.

It also did not seem to bother him that the world would ridicule our "democratic election process" if those appointed by Bush 41 or with family working for the election of Bush 43 had the final say in the outcome of the election.

Androcass  06/26/2008 09:39 PM Report

But, Brian, regardless of what you or I might believe, many "professionals" have debated that very point over the years. The wording of the amendment is just vague enough to support either interpretation, and many lovers of constitutional democracy have wrestled with that. It really isn't necessary to sneer at people who see it differently from you; you can make your points (and you do have a lot to back them up) without resorting to that.

Furthermore, the shot at "soccer moms and housewives" wsa gratuitous. The Constitution was intended as a document for the people, not just those who consider themselves professionals. I have little doubt that, had the founders been able to anticipate the problems their wording would cause, they would have clarified it. It's a great document, deservedly the basis for our government, but it is not without flaws.

Brian  06/26/2008 07:43 PM Report

Marilyn's previous comment regarding District of Columbia v. Heller shows exactly why soccer moms and housewives should leave constitutional interpretation to the professionals.

The Second Amendment is neither vague nor ambiguous in guaranteeing the individual right to keep and bear arms. It would take a flagrant disregard for proper grammar, a willful ignorance of American Revolutionary Era history, a complete flouting of conventions of constitutional interpretation, and a dash of sheer stupidity to arrive at the patently ludicrous and legally untenable position that the Second Amendment refers to a "collective right."

It's sobering, indeed, for all lovers of constitutional democracy that people like Marilyn and the four liberal activist judges on the Court think nothing of inventing constitutional "rights" that do not actually appear in the Constitution itself (i.e., the rights to abortion and sodomy), while at the same time advocate denying recognition and protection of rights explicitly enshrined in the Constitution (i.e., the Second Amendment).

Liberals and judicial activists consider themselves unrestrained by the Constitution, and that's the very definition of judicial tyranny.

Thank God for justices like Mr. Scalia.

Marilyn  06/26/2008 04:21 PM Report

Reading these comments today, June 26 just after the decision on the "right to bear arms," some of you really got it right.

Scalia did not interpret the second amendment, he made a new law.

The exact language of the 2nd Amendment is: "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."

Scalia interprets "the right of the people" to mean "the rights of individuals having nothing to do with any militia." He has left the door wide open, as the NRA states today:

"This is just the beginning."

Now I am going to rewatch the interview. When it was on tv I turned it off because I was disgusted by the arrogance of Scalia.

Andy  06/25/2008 09:07 PM Report

I didn't care much for Scalia before I saw this interview (I tend to be politically moderate), but now I have greater respect for him, especially after hearing his comments in the closing minutes of the interview.

Jim Russell  06/25/2008 08:57 PM Report

The reason a document written over 200 years ago is still very relevent today as our Constitution is because it is based on human nature, which hasn't changed in 10000 years. Ambition, greed, jealousy, etc. are just as prevelent today as they were in 1776. By pitting some citizens against other citizens, also called the seperation of powers, the Constitution assures us a natural brake on power and on tyrany against citizens. Making decisions based on the Constitution today and in the future will continue to protect our way of life and rights because it is based on a rare understanding of the nature of man.

If citizens don't like their law of the land, they can change it. Until then, its the law of the land.

I would appreciate it if the Supreme Court would limit itself to interpreting it strictly and not becoming legislators.

mark jochum  06/25/2008 01:47 PM Report

Charlie has the best program on TV....Its the only program worth watching.mfj

jaden  06/25/2008 12:13 PM Report

Any comments made here are of minor consequence. Most are opinion with some facts. But the opinions have to be based on fact. I have to correct the statement that Scalia is a strong advocate of separation between church and state. The fact is exactly the opposite. I wish the comment had been offered as a joke.

Robert Fine  06/25/2008 03:18 AM Report

Mike Rand, your comments about the Founding Fathers reflect ignorance. Most of the fifty-five delegates who attended the Philadelphia Convention were brilliant, and for the most part they were young. For example, Alexander Hamilton was thirty and James Madison was 36. One-third were veterans of the Continental Army. I recommend that you educate yourself about the formation and meaning of our Constitution. Perhaps you should start by reading the Federalist Papers. In that great work, you will learn why the Founders believed that it was important to implement a system of checks and balances and to separate the branches of government.

wakeup  06/24/2008 09:37 PM Report

Everyone commenting about the detainees in Guantanamo need to understand distinctions between aliens and American citizens. Aliens are not granted the rights provisioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Aliens don't have access to appeal within the U.S. Court system. The issue of torture is serparate and needs to be addressed by the U.S. Congress and Executive branch.

Andrew  06/24/2008 03:08 PM Report

These posts are, for the most part, poorly reasoned emotional arguments. Bush may well be an unenlightened buffoon, but can you people please state some criteria for constitutional interpretation - or some criteria for living life - that has even a shred of the coherence of Scalia's? The fact is that you cannot. Pathetic.

It's this simple: If you want abortion and homosesxual marriage and child pornography, there's a democratic process available to make it happen. Stop trying to pursue a liberal agenda via the courts.

504crank  06/24/2008 12:17 PM Report

So the most sacred institution in a democracy -- the right for every vote to count -- had to be sacrificed in 2000, because, Scalia now admits, he was afraid that the United States was becoming a laughing stock of the world.

Wow.

So seven years later, the United States isnt a laughing stock of the world?

Amazing what a SCOTUS justice will hear on the golf course or while hunting ducks.

alec  06/24/2008 09:41 AM Report

"He is a strong advocate of the separation between church and state."

Are you joking?

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 08:59 AM Report

America is a nation of laws. America is not ruled as a nation of opinions. The basis for the American democracy having lived longer than any in human history has been the Constitution. These (as has been called by some) Old White Dead Men knew much more about human history than people of today. They knew the problems of Europe. They wrote a Constitution which so far has passed the test of time. This Constitution's wisdom is the separation of power. This country has one President, 100 Senators and some 400+ Congress-people. It also has 9 appointed and approved Supreme Court judges. These judges are appointed by an Administration and approved by the majority of 100 Senators. Scalia is one of nine Judges. This is "separation of power." There is not a person with an IQ on the right side of the Bell Curve who does not disagree with certain judges. Scalia happens to believe, ( I think rightly) that we are a nation of laws and these laws must be written by the legislative branches of the government and approved by the executive branch and, if controversial, then ruled on by nine Supreme Court justices. Scalia believes that Judges or the Courts should not write laws or go with the flow "of the time." If anyone has a problem with that, they likely do not like our form of government and would prefer another system besides our republic. Scalia said that "judges" do not have the wisdom to make such laws...in essence, he is saying it take a much broader body, such as the legislature, and our form of checks and balances. Scalia, and his views, are a value to this Court of Nine. As are the others. Checks and balances all around.

charlies sheep  06/24/2008 03:49 AM Report

AHH THE ROAR OF THE BREEZE--JUSTICE--SAID W--HE THOUGHT-- YES-"JUST US"--TO DICK --DRIVE ON ---JAMES

Logic  06/24/2008 01:46 AM Report

Hazzsolutions meant to say Reagan 2.

Infallible Identity  06/24/2008 01:44 AM Report

To: Thoughts of Mike Rand. The Founding Fathers put in a very specific method to amend the Constitution or hold a new Constitutional Convention. If you or anyone consider themselves the infallible ones you should have no difficulty using the process to change the substance or the process itself. Process and structure is justice. Often it takes one to be a parent watching one's own child cheat at a simple game to realize that games are not games if agreed upon rules are not followed. Justice is process not perceived wisdom.

hazzsolutions  06/24/2008 01:19 AM Report

Antonin Scalia says it most clearly. He will be known as a member of the Bush 2 court.

jaden  06/24/2008 01:07 AM Report

It surprises me so much how people can hear someone speak and not know what he/she said. Justice Scalia is a Catholic and most Catholics do believe in evolution. The Vatican accepted evolution as science a long time ago. (fyi: Roman Catholics interpret the Bible allegorically, for the most part.) Justice Scalia says it doesn't matter that times change, the Constitution does not change. If it's not in the Constitution, its up to Congress to make a law, and that includes abortion. Mr. Rand, did you not hear him say that several times. I would imagine that, as a Catholic, Justice Scalia is pro-life, but he can't let his personal beliefs influence his ruling regarding the US Constitution. He is a strong advocate of the separation between church and state. I disagree with him about the Bush v Gore decision--it was Bush who first brought it to the court, not Gore-- and I disagree with him regarding rights of detainees at Gitmo. (At least some of those men were not terrorists until after they were released. But that's another issue, albeit one of our most important ones.) Justice Scalia is most certainly not an activist judge. It was his friend Justice Ginsberg who voted with the majority to expand the meaning of the "eminent domain" law so that now none of us are safe from having our homes taken out from under us. Scalia was rightly in the minority. So, who is dangerous?

Damion  06/24/2008 12:42 AM Report

I like how most posters here Ignore Scalias consistent refrain of "Is this dealt with in the constitution?" The Supreme Court is Focused upon cases that deal with Constitutional Issues. There are issues that are NOT directly dealt with in the Constitution. Thus many topics should be dealt with exclusivly by Elected Legislation. Topics such as Abortion, Imprisoned detainees who are NOT US citizens, etc are NOT issues found in the constitution. the Founders could not imagine gay marriage, Abortion, or a large army of non nation based "mercenaries" attacking the United States.

Sorry but the court Again is supposed to review cases that touch upon Constitutional issues.

TABS  06/24/2008 12:20 AM Report

Let us wipe this table clean. Abraham Lincoln said in 1858, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Since 1992 one political party or the other has been screaming like a scalded dog about the other party's President in office,supposed abuses of power and evil doings. First at bat were the Conservative Republicans screaming about Bill Clinton getting his BJ's in the Oval Office and lying about it. Now for the past 8 years it has been the Liberal Democrats whining about GW and his trumped up war and abuses of power in conducting that war. At what point do the two sides sit down and try to see that the other side has Americas heart at interest, only it is from another point of view that is opposite to their own. Secondly what is it going to take for both sides to reconcile themselves, if they don't, like ole Abe said, at some point the shootin is gona start happening.

Joanna  06/23/2008 10:41 PM Report

How can I add anything to the excellent comments of Marshall Ross and MotherLode! Well, perhaps not only praising the interviewer and the interviewee but also expressing my appreciation for some rare glimpses into Judge Scalia's fascinating personality (actually, unlike one viewer, I DID like the part about his love of opera--he became more human like me instead of some remote black-robed untouchable!). Thanks for having him on, Charlie and Co.!

Mike Rand  06/23/2008 10:34 PM Report

So, what is it that makes those damn Founding Fathers infallible?

They're just a bunch of white, middle aged guys who sat around, drinking a few beers, while they wrote the US Constitution!

Now a buch of white, middle-aged guys (and a token woman) sit around interpreting the document, 200 years later.

Does Scalia not realize that the world has changed? [Perhaps not, because he probably doesn't believe in evolution\.

Anyone who hangs out duck hunting with Cheney is obviously a political hack. It's scary that his vote can change the course of justice in this country.

Charlie Rose, I love you but you were way too soft on this dangerous man.

Do you think his opinions on abortion, gun control and illegal confinement might change if (a) his daughter were raped and became pregnant by the rapist, (b) his son was shot by some NRA friend, showing off his stupid gun collection and then (c) his wife was shipped to Guantanamo for six years because she had a Facebook friend who was a suspected Al Quaeda terrorist?

Wake up and smell the gunpowder, America!

Robert Philbin  06/23/2008 09:56 PM Report

To respond to only one point in this interview:

"The death penalty is the best example. Is the death penalty unconstitutional? I mean that to me is an absolutely absurd question. The death penalty was the only penalty for a felony at the time of the bill of rights. It clearly was not cruel and unusual punishment; and since it wasn't then, it isn't now. It may be a bad idea, and some states have thought so and have eliminated it. -- I don't, I don't take any position on the merits of it, but I know it's not unconstitutional. It may be stupid."

. . . "That's my idea. It's not up to me."

The logic of this statement needs no deconstruction, in my view. The definition of "felony" changes over time, but not the definition of, "cruel and unusual punishment"? This interview actually progresses (or disintegrates)to the level of grounds for the impeachment of Justice Scalia for simple incompetency.

Thank you.

Robert Philbin

Bob Boller  06/23/2008 05:40 PM Report

How odd that Justice Scalia would show dis dislike for judges that consider the consequences of a decision in making that decision when, earlier in the hour, his most emphatic defense of Gore V Bush was that prolonging the vote count would do harm to the process of transition to a new presidency!

Shaft  06/23/2008 05:00 PM Report

Mr. Rose, another excellent conversation, good prying questions. Justice Scalia is another ultra conservative ideologue that is refusing to accept responsibility for planting Pres.GWB on the face of America and the world. His idea of "originalism" is out of the book looking to take us back to the American revolution ignoring all the progress we made over the last two and half centuries. He does not understand the world is a moving world and the river of time continue to fly unlike to his liking that the 'non-originalists have to explain their position' is a mockery to intelligence. I have tremendous respect to all judges and the Supreme Court but when a certain person tries to bring it down in the name of ideological interest makes it easy for me to distaste that certain individual. Well, Justice Scalia I have a comment for you, I hope you come back to check on what the people are saying to your conversation, here is what I have to say: the world rotates every 24 hours bringing day and night and most people sleep a third of that 24-hour day and the rest is spent in different ways, most get up and go to work making that in itself is a moving world. What was original yesterday is not original today because of 24-hours have elapsed in between. In the word of a chemist yesterday is said to have oxidized. Justice Scalia's "originalism" ideology would like to preserve the natural order of anything totally disregarding the movement of time. If the world was on a standstill, then Justice Scalia's "originalism" ideology would have ruled the day, but the world moves daily and we ought to get along with time and move along. America itself is born out of a moving world; even Justice Scalia's father came to America because of the moving world. "Originalism" fails to explain the discrepancies born out of the river of time. ->> IMHO, "originalism" like "conism" (the current administration's insiders' ideology) is an ideological phase created out of benefiting a very sling and narrow minority group whose intention is search for an idea and impose those ideas on others. Most of the time the American society being an open society is receptive to any thrilling idea. Our society is always in search of new phenomenon to follow and likes to experience new ideas and along the way some get euphoric interest in the idea. They grab it by the collar and propel it to the highest stratosphere possible along the way search any beneficial side in it. But, like "conism", "originalism" will defeat itself just give it some time the American society is not willing to back pedal to 250 years back. ->>The world can only exist in "originalism" state, if society is equally served by the system. Well, in reality it is not so, hence that is why "originalism" cannot be a modes operandi to follow, even if America transform itself into a pure communist state by tomorrow, the idea of "originalism" cannot be successfully implemented. The ideology surely gives judges more power to wiggle any certain phenomenon and express their thoughts as they desire to, but like the conism ideology (that gave exclusive access to few individuals who bounced the same agreed upon yet flawed idea off-of each others forehead for a while before attempting to implement it and at the end of the day that idea fell on the ground to cover itself with dirt just like the idea itself was worth that very dirt) originalism will fall face first. The problem is it will affect many lives before its proven wrong, for instance it has some responsibilities for having to open the corridor for the election debacle that has cost America its stand in the world stage. Had Gore-Liberman had been instituted as they won the election fair and square we would not have all the mess we have today exacerbating our economy making it difficult for the average American to enjoy life. I think, justice Scalia is relating the concept of "originalism" wrongly here, according to him the constitution is a living document, yet at the same time his argument suggests that the document must remain original to the letter of the spirit it was written as. Even though we have come over 220 years since and the world is not the same since the time the constitution was written. I think he might as well call it as a dead document, because every living thing moves, be it of insect nature, animal or a plant; they all move and grow, and if he defines the constitution as a living document, then it must move or at least try to move to get along with the changing times. I am not suggesting that it competes in speed, but at least it should accommodate slowly some of the changes. Even in twenty years our world has moved drastically with respect to advanced medical technology. ->>Yet our society shows growth and justice Scalia would like it to be a dead document written in the time of era and not move an iota amount from the times it was written and made to suit for is silly at best and ensuring that it's a dead document. America has gone thru many changes, so did the world even in the past 70 years. How does "originalism" compete with the idea of progress? It is a dead concept, which would not be suitable for discussion even 100 years ago, let alone in the 21st century. But then again America likes new idea and some are willing to explore it while others like chaos created in times of confusion hence such ideas can only find receptive audience in America, the greatest country on Earth. The reason one can clearly identify justice Scalia, as being an ultra-conservative is that between minutes of the interview 40:00 and 41:00 justice Scalia contradicted himself at list a couple times, he says he does not have any side when he makes decision yet he mentions Gtm. Prisoners as having to engage in combat again after being released. He is looking for sympathy from the conservatives while he never mention Iraq issue at all. He also argued the document as a living document while technologically advanced in the intrusion of the police using infrared technology to identify a Mary-J grower, yet he does not think the living document embrace changing times, if the document was living it would embrace advances. Unfortunately, the constitution is neither a living nor a dead document its a piece of paper only the justices interpreting it can give it life and it seems the justice Scalia wants it to remain a piece of paper not a living document. Technological advancement is a means to thwart anticipated crime a form of movement and hence it is a direct challenge to "originalism" (stagnant idea).

Carol  06/23/2008 01:30 PM Report

I too thought the questions were "kind" and there seemed to be a underlying respect from both Charlie and Scalia towards one another. Scalia did not show the distain he showed on 60 Minutes. Opera?? That was 10 minutes wasted when Scalia opened the door on the Warren and you could have done so with Burger.

klm33333  06/23/2008 01:25 PM Report

Originalism is an ideology just like creationalism. Scaliaâ??s comments display his ideology is superior to competitive ideas, including reasonable competitive ideas. That is the flaw in his analysis.

Not Getting Over It  06/23/2008 10:17 AM Report

To those who agree the American people should "get over it" with regard to the 2000 election cases, let's ask ourselves a few things. Has the ProLife movement gotten over Roe v. Wade? The "We the People" in the constitution did not include those enslaved, native Americans, women because the Founding Fathers could not agree on how to deal with this - how long and how many lives did it take the country to "get over" that faux pas? The list can go on. Go back and read the actual opinions in the 2000 election cases. To say to the American people to "Get Over It" with regard to these judicial opinions is to trivalize and attempt to dismiss a decision that had such a profound effect on the country. The country will not be "getting over it" for many years to come. The 4100 service members who have died in Iraq will not be getting over it at all.

Marshall Ross  06/23/2008 09:17 AM Report

Excellent interview, one of the best. Scalia laid it out so clearly and simply -- liberals (mostly) want judges to have the ability to change the Constitution when any changes to it should be made through the legislature.

Sadly, many of the respondents still haven't got over Al Gore. Hey guys, it's almost 8 years now, move on will yah?

phloot  06/22/2008 11:32 PM Report

The only thing Supreme about the Court at this point is the political agenda of a "Justice" like Scalia. Supreme arrogance and Supreme idiocy are all he has to offer. He is a political hack, not a Justice.

beecham  06/22/2008 08:16 AM Report

Torture is punishment. To say otherwise is simply lying. It also violates the Fifth Ammendment. The death penaly is cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia couldn't care less about the Constitution. It's yet another slogan.

fjgajewski  06/21/2008 08:55 PM Report

Mr. Justice Scalia's brand of exegesis would make sense only if successive Congresses discharged their responsibility to bring the Constitution into the present.

Michael lang  06/21/2008 06:45 PM Report

Over the years, I think I have watched over 1500 Charlie Rose interviews and I think this is the best interview Charlie Rose has ever done. When Charlie asked Judge Scalia what were the most important structural elements that layman should understand about the Constitution and he answered and I agreed, that it was the separation of power clauses, I was stunned. Here is a guy who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney; Cheney, a man who believes that during war time the president takes on the powers of a king. What does Scalia think about the constitutionality of signing statements and the willful violation of laws passed by congress regarding wiretapping of American citizens? Where in the Constitution dose it allow the president to arbitrarily ignore articles that he finds inconvenient in treaties that previous administrations have signed without consulting the congress? Don't all these actions compromise the integrity of the Constitution?

Roy Fassel  06/21/2008 05:20 PM Report

Scalia's view of the Constitution seems to upset many people. His views are that the Constitution stands as written, until legislation changes the rulings. That has happened since the Constitution was written. He differs with some, maybe many, that the courts should not change the Constitution nor change the laws. That is the job of the legislature. This is not extreme or old fashion. All Scalia is saying...for example...for something pulled out of thin air...of the right to privacy equals the rights of abortions. That was a stretch. I would think that Scalia, a seemingly devout Catholic, was accept a "Constitutional Amendment" to legalize abortions. His view might be written and the Constitution is truly a living document. Therefore, the Constitution can be legally altered or changed during the legislative remedies. Scalia will go down in history as "stealing" the 2000 election for Bush. The Florida Supreme Court has a resolution they pulled out of thin air, that was approved by a vote of 4-3 in favor. The Chief of Florida voted against it. The Federal Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court rulings violated Federal laws. Therefore, it surely is Scalia, all by himself, who stole the election for Bush. I would think Charlie had more rational and intelligent viewers that some of the comments indicate.

Drake7  06/21/2008 02:39 PM Report

It is a pity that the interview with Scalia did not more vigorously challenge his idiotic and human-rights-despising concept of 'Originalism.' He is the sort of fool who would say that if citizens had the right to travel freely from state to state in 1791, then since the Founding Fathers had travel by coach in mind, there can today be no freedom of movement, since there are no more coaches. A rights-document is not a city by-law, whose provisions are exact specifications of what is permitted and what is not. Rather, it is a statement of a philosophy of liberty, whose meaning has to grow to encompass what each era understands as the essential requirements of human dignity. Otherwise it is not a charter of liberty, but a mere entrenchment of the contingent usages of the past. Scalia's crabbed understanding of the philosophy of human freedom not only demonstrates his inability to understand the Constitution, but his moral incapacity to respect human dignity.

MotherLodeBeth  06/21/2008 02:15 PM Report

What a great hour! And so refreshing to hear firsthand what Justice Scalia has to say, rather than relying on what other people, often those who don't like him, suggest he means when he says this or that. And I agree with him 100% that its not the courts job to make law, but the job of the Congress.

And its to bad as the Justice noted that so many Americans don't even know what the Constitution says, only bits and pieces. And I think its wise to know what the Founding Fathers said and to realize again that its the Congress that can make laws that evolve or create new thought. The Courts job is to interrupt what the Founding Fathers meant.

And as a side note, having read their books, many, many of the Justices have books out, not just Justice Scalia.

aquaday0470  06/21/2008 11:43 AM Report

I enjoyed some of Scalia's perspective, even while despising his partial rationale for the Bush v. Gore decision.

I definitely appreciate his assertion that the legal proceedings important to the day-to-day live s of citizens are legislative and district/state courts. Indeed, involvement in your community -- by discussing the important philosophical and social issues -- is essential to our republic. At the same time, I find his suggestion that 'activist' courts compromise the self-governing capacity of our democracy dubious. I think the representative nature of our government does that well enough. Not that I approve of all self-government. There are some issues that local control presents too many risks. For example, when a local community allows industry to behave in a way that threatens the immediate environment, as some planning commissions are occasionally tempted by the anticipated tax base increase to do, the potential environmental effects spread through the air and water to affect citizens beyond the local level.

Nonetheless, I'm advocating for direct democracy be our local, state, then national, goal. The nature of federalism in this type of self-government presents a challenge, as considered in the previous paragraph.

One over-riding principle economic enterprises should not threaten that which is held in common: air, water, public lands and climate.

I'd be interested to hear more.

Join Charlie Rose Fan Club group on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16877338819&ref=ts

Visit my home district's dem-npl website: district13.us

Visit my candidate's district website:

nd44dem.com

O. List  06/21/2008 04:14 AM Report

How refreshing that Justice Scalia, who takes such obvious pleasure in making clear his lack of concern for others' opinion of him, would write an opinion that determined the outcome of a presidential election based primarily, if his comments in this interview are true, on his concern that the Gore v. Bush election situation was making us a laughingstock around the world. How thoughtful of him to care more for the reputation of his countrymen than for his own.

TABS  06/21/2008 03:41 AM Report

To expand on Justice Scalia's concept of "originalism." The Constitution is the FOUNDATION of the house that compromises the not only the government but the rules and regulations that govern the people of the United States. This Foundation is the incontrovertible anvil upon which issues concerning the rules and regulations of this nation are hammered out upon. This bedrock of a foundation provides structure and stability to the political process and is not subject to the whims of the day. It is quite telling that Thomas Jefferson the great revolutionary who thought that every 20 years or so it was the right of the people to change the form of government as it suited them was not present during the process of hammering out the document. As he was the Ambassador to France at the time..... Secondly There are built in provisions and process in the Constitution that provide for expanding this foundation as the need may arise. This again belies the intent of the founders to provide incontrovertible structure and stability to this foundation of the American government.

Gord Tulk  06/21/2008 02:03 AM Report

James Bowen:

"Scalia claims torture is not punishment. If you threaten someone with torture then apply torture because you didn't get the "information" you wanted then how is that not punishment?"

Applying "torture" with no expectation of getting information is not torture in the context that Scalia et al are meaning, it is abuse.

RE Mant  06/21/2008 12:58 AM Report

Originalism is fine, but I have yet to find a lawyer or judge who has any idea remotely like what the Constitution is about. And it is not at all strange to find nations without written constitutions prior to ours. It is nonsense to say judicial activism began with the Warren court even in this country. What about legal realism? What was legal formalism but an interpretation? What in fact is the common law? No matter what he says, I tend to think of Scalia as a Catholic apologist first and foremost. Odd because Catholics are not exactly believers in fundamental law. Rhetoric should be the last thing of concern to a judge who believes in truth-finding, nor his apparent subsidiarity. I also have a hard time seeing him as an 18th c man of virtue abhoring self-promotion. The death penalty was not the only punishment for a felony in 1787, btw, nor was the Bill of Rights the "fruit" of the Constitution.

rpupkin  06/21/2008 12:53 AM Report

given their influence and responsibility, i've always been impressed with the humility of Supreme Court judges. until now. i half expect to see a mol on each arm.

holy feces, indeed.

unfair (returns)  06/21/2008 12:49 AM Report

Does law ever reach a point where principle prevails over life? [Ala detainees decision - "Lives will be lost."\

unfair unknowing  06/21/2008 12:30 AM Report

Is it too simplistic to conclude that (he said) Gore v Bush election was decided on a perception of world opinion????? If so - HOLY FECES!!

James Bowen  06/21/2008 12:05 AM Report

Nice interview. Softball questions.

Justice Scalia's son got a job in the Bush Administration. Chief Justice Rhenquist's daughter got a job in the Bush Administration and Justice Thomas wife was working for the Bush campaign. Talk about conflict of interest. No question about that. No question about recusal in Bush V. Gore. Scalia claims torture is not punishment. If you threaten someone with torture then apply torture because you didn't get the "information" you wanted then how is that not punishment? No question about that. Scalia is on smart, personable, condescending, arrogant jerk.