Justice Scalia on C-Span

[mickeyd]

http://www.c-span.org/

I caught a speech Justice Scalia gave at the AEI in DC that aired on C-Span. Scalia rarely allows his speeches to be televised or even recorded so I took the time to view it.

The subject of the speech was : "Outsourcing American Law". 

What I found interesting was that the questions that were asked by a number of audience members were really rude and ignorant. One person asked a Q about applying international law to the US and his reply was "I don't do world law, I do United States law". After a rambling off topic "question" from another guy that made no sense the response was "Questions do not begin with the word "that".  One fella had to be removed but Scalia asked that he not be hurt as was being removed.

The disrespect that many questioners showed this man was incredable but even better was the pithy retorts that Scalia gave them.  You could tell that his job security, unlike politicians,  gave him the latatude to skewer the lame critics that tried to disrupt the gathering.

 

[vinhmen]

You could tell that his job security, unlike politicians,  gave him the latatude to skewer the lame critics that tried to disrupt the gathering.

Or it gives him the latitude to be a pompous, arrogant, overbearing ass ...

 

[brewer12345]

Or it gives him the latitude to be a pompous, arrogant, overbearing ass ...

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah...

Surprise, surprise, some of the audience managed to ask dumb questions and embarass themselves. Seems like the classy thing to do would be to move on to the next question as quickly as possible. But like most of the lawyers I have known (sorry Martha), he decided to show the world how much of a superior person he was by sing put-downs on national TV.

I like HL Mencken's definition of a judge: a law student that gets to grade his own papers.

 

[justin]

I was able to hear Justice Clarence Thomas speak at the University of North Carolina School of Law a few years back when I was a student there.

In general, my fellow students were rude to him.

A group of black students (the Black Law Students Association?) had planned a walk-out boycott ( : ) where they would get up and leave during the middle of his speech thereby showing their hardcore resentment of Justice Thomas and disrupt the enjoyment of others. I don't think they carried through with it though. They wanted to stick around and heckle him with questions (that were really statements). Anita Hill was a frequent topic of discussion for students in general.

He seemed like a really down to earth fellow. Drives a motorhome on his vacations, and tries to blend in. He told a tale of one of his trips where he was fueling his RV, when some guy approached him and stared at him. Eventually the guy told Thomas "You look a lot like that Clarence Thomas fellow". Justice Thomas just smiled and said he got that a lot.

 

[Marshac]

"You look a lot like that Clarence Thomas fellow"

I'm shocked that an average American would know what the supreme court members even look like.... this incident must have been many years ago.....

 

[justin]

I'm shocked that an average American would know what the supreme court members even look like.... this incident must have been many years ago.....

50% of Americans are above average (assuming median=mean).

 

[brewer12345]

I'm shocked that an average American would know what the supreme court members even look like.... this incident must have been many years ago.....

Either that or Thomas completely made it up.

 

[setab]

In my opinion respect should be shown for the office even if you don' t agree with or even like the individual.  I feel the same way about the Presidency.  I am constantly appalled by the total lack of respect for the position of President of the United States, no matter who is the current holder of that position.  What ever happened to good, old fashioned manners?

setab

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah...

Hey buddy, I have a copyright on that. PM me the five bucks usage fee.

 

[justin]

Either that or Thomas completely made it up.

Seems like a plausible story. If I were on the Supreme Court (you listenin Georgie?), I wouldn't want to stand around chatting with some stranger at the gas pump about how interesting it must be to be a Supreme Court Justice or the latest and greatest in denials of certiorari or the courts thoughts on procedural due process or some such issue. I'd rather get on with my vacation.

 

[Martha]

Seems like a plausible story. If I were on the Supreme Court (you listenin Georgie?), I wouldn't want to stand around chatting with some stranger at the gas pump about how interesting it must be to be a Supreme Court Justice or the latest and greatest in denials of certiorari or the courts thoughts on procedural due process or some such issue. I'd rather get on with my vacation.

I have heard him tell that story twice.

He spoke at the 8th circuit judges conference here in my city a couple of years ago. My city and the lawyers in it tend to be very, very liberal. The audience was quiet, but unfailingly polite.

 

[mickeyd]

Seems like the classy thing to do would be to move on to the next question as quickly as possible.

If you view the C-Span tape you can see that he gave the questioners a lot of latatude in the beginning as each questiorer had control of the hand-held microphone. He attempted to respond appropriately to the first few Qs but when it became apparant that off-topic questions about VP Cheney, hunting accidents, and Iraq started to pop up it demonstrated that these rude folks were no match for Mr. Scalia.

 

[brewer12345]

In my opinion respect should be shown for the office even if you don' t agree with or even like the individual.  I feel the same way about the Presidency.  I am constantly appalled by the total lack of respect for the position of President of the United States, no matter who is the current holder of that position.  What ever happened to good, old fashioned manners?

setab

Given all the political invective that has been hurled at just about every president over the years, I have a hard time understanding how you think "the office" was ever respected.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

In my opinion respect should be shown for the office even if you don' t agree with or even like the individual. I feel the same way about the Presidency. I am constantly appalled by the total lack of respect for the position of President of the United States, no matter who is the current holder of that position. What ever happened to good, old fashioned manners?

So as to not create too much of a scene, lets just say I give the holders of political positions exactly the same level of respect that they appear to show the people who voted them in.

When the lies, scandals and completely ridiculous stuff stop happening, I'll offer back a good level of respect.

"The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians." (Hiroshima did in fact have a number of military installations, but also had a huge civilian population)

"I have previously stated and I repeat now that the United States intends no military intervention in Cuba." (We sure did)

"I am not a crook" (He sure was)

"We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages -- nor will we." (We definitely did)

"I did not have sex with that woman" (He sure did)

"The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." (Uhh..no.)

"Its pretty well confirmed [that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent prior to 9/11]" (Turns out no solid evidence existed...he later denied ever saying this even though it was on videotape, a lie about the lie)

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (Turns out the "evidence" left plenty of doubt and it wasnt true)

Note the bipartisan lying, over a long period of time. We'll be told what makes us agreeable and compliant.

 

[setab]

CFB,

I will not argue with any of the statements you quoted, and I think you are correct to be disgusted with all of them, in a nonpartisan way of course. However, I still think there is a degree of respect that is due. I am not free to disrespect them, just because they continue to disappoint me. I don't just limit this to politicians. I think there is a deplorable lack of respect shown from one individual to another these days as well. However, I can only control the way I act and react. It has to start somewhere.

setab

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I fully agree with your statement about the lack of respect between plain old individuals. Good manners, honesty and so forth dont appear to be in evidence anymore. I doubt its going to get better. Everyone seems to be off in their own little self absorbed land.

 

[Nords]

However, I still think there is a degree of respect that is due.  I am not free to disrespect them, just because they continue to disappoint me.  I don't just limit this to politicians.  I think there is a deplorable lack of respect shown from one individual to another these days as well.  However, I can only control the way I act and react.  It has to start somewhere.

I think that we, including the military, owe our respect & allegiance to the Constitution.  We don't owe it to the individuals or their offices-- just to the Constitution.  And I think that part of our allegiance is respecting the First Amendment, no matter what type of disrespectful comments (or flag-burnings) it leads to.  

Individuals earn, and deserve, all the respect they get.

When American policy is guided by the skits on Saturday Night Live (as VP Gore's staff did during the 2000 campaign) then you know that American democracy is working.  When Presidents don't have to worry about public opinion as expressed through mouthpieces like Leno, Letterman, & Limbaugh, then we're all in big trouble.

(Don't distract us with the tired old "shouting fire in a movie theater" analogy.  I'm not debating responsibility here, only respect.)

 

[setab]

Nords.

Frankly, I think respect and responsibility are tied to each other. The SNL skits, the Leno, Letterman and Limbaugh comments enable others to be equally disrespectful. Sure, the First Amendment gives them the right to do and say what they do. However, the same Amendment gives them the right to be respectful and/or responsible. I have the highest respect for the First Amendment, but is not just an after-the-fact excuse to say anything that might get you and your network higher ratings. Media personalities have a much greater and more pervasive opportunity to influence the public than any single member of the nonmeida public has. That makes their burden that much greater. But that borders on a different rant, so I will stop there.

setab

 

[JB]

Scalia recently called his philosophical opponents idiots.

 

[justin]

Scalia recently called his philosophical opponents idiots.

To be fair,

"Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

 

[haha]

To be fair,

"Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

IMO, it's pretty hard to argue with his position. Clearly the purpose of the Constitution was and is to act as drag anchor, to keep certain things from happening or at least to slow them down.

Read the Federalist Papers- most framers feared that America would go the way of most societies and lose sight of principles which they thought were a necessity for a civil society.

The world is full of examples that show that this was not an idle fear.

Ha

 

[Martha]

To be fair. . .

Scalia has voted for expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was never interpreted so broadly in the early years of our country.

Most recently, Scalia voted to uphold federal law prosecution of those involved in presribing or providing medical marijuana as allowed by state law, and he dissented in a case where the court upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. Both of these cases were commerce clause cases where the federal government was trying to usurp state law.

I think all this stuff about "strict" construction and what the framers intended is a bunch of political B.S. The constitution says what it says. The major trouble is in applying the consitution to modern day situations.

 

[haha]

To be fair. . .

Scalia has voted for expansive interpretation of the commerce clause.  The commerce clause was never interpreted so broadly in the early years of our country.

Martha, you are likely correct in this. I was only commenting on his referenced statement, not his actual behavior. Though I agree that behavior matters more than the BS that accompanies it.

Ha

 

[justin]

Most recently, Scalia voted to uphold federal law prosecution of those involved in presribing or providing medical marijuana as allowed by state law, and he dissented in a case where the court upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. Both of these cases were commerce clause cases where the federal government was trying to usurp state law.

Clearly, these were both commerce clause cases where Scalia was trying to interpret the original intent of the commerce clause to give the federal government regulatory power when appropriate (in the medical marijuana case) but not when it was inappropriate (such as in the assisted suicide case). The founding fathers clearly meant for one to be covered by the commerce clause, but not the other (this is sarcasm, by the way).

Stare decisis, as long as it supports your position

You're probably a dirty card-holding American Constitution Society member aren't you?

 

[REWahoo]

Scalia has voted for expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was never interpreted so broadly in the early years of our country.

Good grief, I'm having a flashback to my Con Law classes in the 60's. Maybe I did smoke some of that stuff back then, but don't remember it. Or I lied on the poll. Or I'm attempting to strictly interpret what our founding moderator intended... 8)