So great to find this. As a third year law student who’s read hundreds of SCOTUS opinions, these two’s opinions have had the most impact to me. And for different reasons, they are both incredible writers and advocates for their positions. Breyer because he is a natural teacher, has a very matter-of-fact delivery, pauses at appropriate times, goes step by step for complexities. And, most importantly, he has a kind, good-hearted demeanor that comes of just as well in his writing. It makes you trust him, and believe he really may be correct for what’s best for the country on a given matter. Scalia because he is unyielding. If you disagree with him on a point, he’ll give you ten other reasons for why you should still come to the same conclusion. Fiery and passionate. And, just like Breyer, believable. He approaches things with a sort of personal-stake in it, like you are offending something he has dear to his heart. Both make you really take it in and you walk away feeling like you thoroughly understand the position.

11:50 "Who made YOU king!?!" Classic classic Scalia. His peers miss him dearly I betcha.

Two men with differing opinions having a civilized, cordial, and respectful discussion. Where have these values gone? Why has US politics descended into near barbarity?

I like them both. They both feel as though they're defending something- Briar: the values of the constitution. Scalia: the constitution. It's interesting to see that conflict play out.

We make Scalia king. Cause he understood lawyers shouldn't anoint themselves king. Like the only desirable, albeit impossible, philosopher-king, he wants no part of it. People decide policy. Sleep tight Nino. You planted the seed, we'll water it.

Scalia is right when he says it is tyranny to substitute your judgment for the expressed words in the constitution. At the same time, Scalia will say actual innocence is no defense to a criminal conviction. You need both approaches. Justice is an elusive concept. One must know which legal instrument to use when dealing with a challenging case. The problem is we are enticed by the siren’s call to get to the verdict or decision we want. I like Scalia’s logical mind. I like Bryer’s emotional mind. To get to wise mind, we need both.

The sound that Justice Scalia makes at 13:23!!hahahaha I will always love Antonin Scalia!

What jewel of a man, Scalia. Incredible ability to spar intellectually. Amazing

We need another Scalia. This guy is breath of fresh air

Justice Scalia knew history and had a high respect for individual liberty and its authority over the governments, that is how the framers intended our Constitution to function and is verifiable to anyone intellectually honest.

Love these two together!!

Interestingly, these two men were good friends, despite their philosophical differences.

I don't why but I laugh every time Justice Scalia disagrees with someone he starts mumbling things under his breath like at 10:45 😂

They both brings two different concepts and interpretations to the law !

If Scalla were still alive after watching this I would've looked forward to a Scalla Breyer Presidential Debate.

I tend to side with Scalia more, but this was a great discussion.

both of them are great

Brayer so very relaxed, comfortable, confident, professional & very knowledgeable and civil The other one empty ideas, uncivil speaking very lowdely

Where is part 2 with this conversation with Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer?

God Bless Justice Scalia. May he rest in peace. A great loss.

I think there is a mix of both views. Some amendments and rights are absolute the way they have been phrased, some look to the future to apply societal standards. Like the death penalty discussion that was cited, with the phrasing being "unusual", leaving the notion it shall be interpreted with what is seen unusual at the time a case comes into question and asks for interpretation. On the other hand there are amendments like the second which leave no such interpretation open, because it defines a right that "shall not be infringed", therefore being absolute no matter the year

Shout out to Professor Godfrey!

I really enjoyed that discussion. It's refreshing to see two people with opposing views sitting down and having a rational conversation on their views and differences. I find myself taking the originalist approach. That's not to say that times don't change and certain intents no longer apply or are irrelevant, but far too often the Evolutionist interpretations are based on fallacy for the purpose of pushing their own agendas and beliefs. As a result, the true intentions and purpose of the Bill of Rights are undermined.

The two points are interesting to think about. I'm not going to say who I side with, but, seeing this for my classes shows me that even Supreme Court Justices have to consider many things when interpreting the Constitution for an overall ruling. If you respond please keep it civil, I don't want people arguing in my reply section over who vs. who.

Outstanding!! Nuff' Said!

The United States really misses Antonin Scalia. Perhaps the greatest Supreme Court Justice in American History.

Where can I find the full video?

Well I’ll be damned!!! I find myself swayed to the originalist perspective on the role of SCOTUS. I’m not sure the more conservative justices necessarily follow their own mandate consistently. 22:05 Bryer does bring up an important issue here. I think this is where much of the dirty fighting takes place! Why can’t our elected officials behave like these two.

We miss him!!!

min 19:01 I'm pretty sure, the democratic anxium would state, "No agency shall hold higher authority than Individual Soveriegnty " any thing less would be Tyranny

Scalia takes a position that's simpler and that many would agree with, while Breyer is dealing with the more difficult aspects of interpretation. Scalia goes too far by taking that basic notion of originalism, which all agree with and which could probably resolve 90% of cases, and extending it to the difficult 10% of cases where you'd be lying to yourself to say you're not imposing some personal interpretive method. If it was all as simple as Scalia makes it out to be, you could have clerks or robots applying the facts to the law, but laws are often ambiguous and demand judgment (hence we need wise judges) to do some additional interpretation and analysis. Not to mention the fact that every day there are new facts and situations which legislatures writing laws never even thought of, not to mention the founding fathers conceived 200 years ago. Breyer is talking about what it takes, in his views, to make a good informed decision, while Scalia just reiterates the same point

where's the rest of the video?

Listening to Judge Breyer provides great clarity as to the problems both on the Court and in our society. Feelings and undefinable methods are what have led us onto the precipe to which we find ourselves standing at this very moment. Judge Barrett can't get here fast enough to provide stability and steer the Court back onto the road in which it was intended to travel.

One of these approaches gives the court the power to legislate and impose its will, and one does not.

I made my grandma surprise with scenes. Back from the dead.

I realize that this debate is a decade old but how refreshing is it to see smart teenagers sans smartphones relatively engaged and attentive to deep and complex subject matter.

The definitions and lists approach makes articulation easier. And management. Court's job is the keeper, not changer, of definitions. Legislatures job is the list and changes to definitions. Precedent shows changes in definitions over time. Court should not effect list changes or definition changes ("legislating from the bench"). Constitution gives this to the Legislature. The interstate commerce clause example as explained by Judge Breyer seemed to require going back to the beginning of time, ignoring the chariot system (still in OD effect today) and not simply adding horseless carriage to the list, but reinventing the law. Judge Scalia seemed to think that the horseless carriage could be added to a list of covered items with no basic problems in the notions of regulation of interstate commerce. In activist-revisionist courts, court precedents have altered both definitions and list items. For openers. As to "cruel and unusual", capital punishment was not on list. Needed a vote to change list. As Justice Scalia pointed out, state legislatures voted on the subject later. Justice Breyer seems not to understand the concept of "if it is not expressly forbidden then it is permitted."

It's kinda funny when you think about it - particularly in the case of the 8th amendment. What would he have us do...scratch it out, and then put it back word for word so he can now read it to mean what is currently considered cruel and unusual?

Thomas Sowell would say: Conflict of visions.

The problem with not holding the standard of execution as death in Title 18 sect 241 then by making it a prison sentence then it makes those who assault your rights slide by because you can get out of prison and go back and do it again and it never become an absolute deterrent to go against Constitutional rights and respect for it.

Scalia was the brightest conservative public figure in history. The man’s views are so sharp that he stood out from everyone else in the chamber, notwithstanding the fact that the chamber is full of the best and most intelligent Ivy League-graduating justices. Also, very witty and funny person. I often disagreed with his opinions (especially reich v. Gonazalez where he broke with the conservatives on a state rights issue, and it was one of the few times he didn’t vote with Thomas. Was also one of the few cases where the conservatives voted for a liberal initiative -states legalizing pot- and the liberals voted for the conservative position). But he was always systematical, methodical, precise, witty and intelligent. Rip

Both of these gentlemen are fine jurists. Regardless of which philosophy one sides with, they each are based on reason and the constitution. To me, I can't help but favor Breyer's jurisprudence because it embraces the complexity of the constitution and the world we live in. Whereas Scalia appears to reject it. I respect both (RIP Scalia).

I don't understand how there could be a debate about, "no state shall pass an expost facto law" . It's very straightforward. No means no.

This isn't even a debate. It's one laywer speaking about law and an activist trying to change the law.

The difference between the two of them is that Scalia is wary of a group of isolated judges making "decisions" upon how society has evolved, and Breyer is eager to make those decisions (and shape society according to his own beliefs). I'm amazed at Scalia's consistency over the years, and at how much he saw into the future, where the result of Breyer-type decisions would completely politicize the court and the nomination process. The judicial and executive branches have far too much power now, at the expense of the legislative branch which is most responsive to the electorate.

Interesting debate

Great true story,book title-"Cowboy Mafia "@

Is it normal for Justices to say and interact online?

So if a majority disagree with Roe would Justice Breyer allow his living constitution overturn it?

Thank you, Justice Breyer, for helping us understand and appreciate the Constitution.

Scalia was really an excellent judge. He understood what the role should and should not entail. Breyer is just a politician legislating from the bench.

this was filmed is 2014??

I saw this video in high school. I knew very little about politics, let alone the constitution. I didn't even know the political leanings of either Justice in this video. Upon watching this video, I started binging all other discussions between Breyer and Scalia. I've been a Conservative ever since.

They must use interpretation skills where logical conundrums are there, not on ethical grounds . A judge in court is not immediate reflection of ethics people of realm adhere to, it is legislators. When there is no logical error, different interpretation than original can not be given on ethical grounds.

5:43 But the manner and social circumstances surrounding it are not the same as that of 1791.

Notice how they don't have my LinkedIn and other posts.

Whenever they talk about the constitution evolving with time, it’s never periods of time that our a week or two weeks… It’s always used in the concert the hundreds of years… The forefathers could never have envisioned this or that. Things can evolve week by week. New technologies are here one day that weren’t here yesterday. The forefathers certainly knew that the passage of time made dramatic changes. In any case, none of these Supreme Court justices would accept the argument that something had “developed “over a short period of time and therefore should be amended in the constitution. Their sticklers on having it so far away, that it’s only interpretive.

4:30 jsutice Breyer playing semantics.

Under Scalia's view, wouldnt every fine be unconstitutional since, due to inflation, vitrually every fine today would've been excessive to the founders?

It is good that there are limitations on democracy. Democracy is mob rule. As the old saying goes, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. We've a republic which means the majority does get its way so long as that way doesn't infringe individual rights. It's why we've a system of government where government is supposed to only exercise those powers explicitly granted to it and some are explicitly denied to it like the 2nd Amendment which speaks of a right that shall not be infringed.

The Originalist view makes the most sense, but it’s capital “A” Academic, and that’s not always applicable to real life, though laws make it so that they have to be applicable

that was wild

I myself am a "textualist" in constitutional interpretation. That means we interpret the words LITERALLY which can lead to both "liberal" and "conservative" results. That said, I find myself in agreement with both Justices Scalia and Breyer in this dialogue.

Does the 2nd Amendment only apply to 18th century firearms, since those were what the Framers had in mind when they wrote about "the right to keep and bear arms"?

Who made you king 🤣🤣🤣

Look to Paul Revere. Look to the Common Human.

Originalists seem to be smarter people. Briar says there were no cars back then, well ya but there were modes of transportation and state borders. Briar clearly enjoys the power he has

They don't even call out the $50mil guy.

8:42 Gerrymandering exists.

Scalia is so much better and its not even close.

Social Security people even have records of how much you earned total. And jobs and employers.

Please revise your subtitles

Quite interesting to listen to your conversation and discussions ! Compliments 😌 🎉 Never does your discussions makes a mention of the special occasions of judgments whereat the events may call for the constitution of Courts special and specific with a suitable authority on the topics of disputes and controversies 😢. Are Special Courts out of date ? and even so with the faculties in the Sciences of Laws and Jurisprudence ? As for the topics on abortion , death etc I would like to be served by your answer as to who is the creator/maker of the feutus ... ... the Unseen , Gods , the Allah or the Courts of the so called Empires of Democracies ? Courts led by the uncivilized are nothing but the Courts of the butchers . 😢

Breyer's hypothetical about a statute of limitation potentially being an "ex post facto" law (at 16:20), is easy to resolve and shows the impropriety of Breyer's "living Constitution" view. An ex post facto law criminalizes behavior after one commits it. Criminal laws are "substantive." Statutes of limitation are "procedural." Simply lengthening the statute of limitation for a behavior that was criminal when the accused DID it, does not fit the definition of ex-post facto law, Rather, resurrecting the statute of limitation after it had passed, resulted in an unfair "procedure." Thus, the constitutionality of the extended statute of limitation becomes a question of DUE PROCESS. The distinction, though it may be semantical in this particular case, is important because it may not be merely semantical in a later case.

The trouble with originalism is this. Sometimes - "cruel and unusual punishment" - the constitution uses language that is apt to be understood differently over time. By putting it in the constitution, it's become a question of law. Judges have to determine the meaning. An originalist would say, ok, X amounts to, what 21st century American judges consider "cruel and unusual punishment". But because 18th century people understood it differently, the reasonable meaning of the words to contemporary Americans should be ignored.

Lawyers should not anoint themselves 👑 KING. Its not up to the supreme court to write a new constitution. Breyer is slippery with his words.

Scalia was right.

My Art. 1/16/2022 🤔💭👀👁️👁️🏡

The constitution did not recognise Scallia!😂

14:06

Breyer just squirms around Scalia's rock-solid point.

Breyer is just wrong. He is not there to decide what the law should be, but only if the law is legal under the Constitution or not. People forget we are collection of states. Though the federal level is important, it now overwhelmingly so ... in size, scope, power and more. Let the people decide.

The older guy does not realize the tyranny that has recently taken place in this country. We cannot have a evolutionary aspect of the constitution or our rights will be taken away, and they have, and we are living it. The question is how bad will it become if we continue to adopt the methods of the evolutionary aspect to the constitution? The younger guy however is scared for the direction this country is headed in with its mind seat geared to 9 men making court decisions.

"There is not right or wrong for me?"......I feel it is really dangerous for a judge to say that......I apreciate both of them but I am not a lawyer,so.....I know this Universe created by God or not, function in a natural way which must be reflected in the laws....isnt t?.....and the first ever laws we accepted like human beeings were religious and moral. The secular ideas came afterwards and have less then 250 years of history....let s see how long will exist!

11:50 Well, who made the Founding Fathers king? Why should we be bound to what they thought was cruel? They wouldnt even want that, if they did, they wouldve just wrote out every punishment they thought was cruel. Most of them explictly favored a "living constiution" and believed many of the immoral practices of their day, slaver for example, should be eliminated.

Scalia was such a genius

Breyer argument, just like Breyer legal writings, make no sense. You don't change the meaning the "meaning" of the Constitution, but you take upon yourself to decide how much the underlying values would be different to the changing society, that is changing the Constitution.

11:50 King Breyer. Breyer is so transparent on being a tyrant

Scalia is dead right about the 17th Amendment.Before that passed,every Senator represented their state.Today,all Senators represent the same state,The State Of Israel.

I mostly agree with Scalia except that he is guided too much by the Catholic church. The First Amendment explicitly forbids this in a legal setting.

Non-originalists do not assert that the Constitution “changes” or “evolves” at all. A classic constitutionalist is someone who wants to cite a provision of the constitution to defend the indefensible and justify it by reference to “what the framer’s intended”, which is just as inventive as the people they criticise, indeed more so. What does the constitutional provision mean, having regard to the fact that the framers must surely have anticipated change, just as dramatic change had occurred prior to their own lives being lived. Scalia was a brilliant man, and with a startling intellect, but he was wrong, fundamentally, in his critique of those who properly applied what is an instrument meant to last forever.

The Conservative position is more democratic. Change it. Pass legislation. Pass amendments. The Liberal Position isn't. It has changed by magic or revelation, at the whim of 5 out of 9 Lawyers.

It's sad that such an able and wise justice like Justice Breyer is leaving the court. I hope KBJ lives up to his legacy nad ever create a legacy of her own.

Good grief. Right off the bat that woman gets it wrong. The job of the Supreme Court justices isn't to interpret the Constitution. We all know what the Constitution means. The only people who claim otherwise are those who are muddying the water to try to grow government power. The job of the Supreme Justices isn't to interpret the Constitution but rather to decide whether a law is something the government is allowed to do under the Constitution.

Mmmmmm if Society changes, the Constitution should evole and change. The World is very different from when it was written.

Breyer is right. In order for Scalia to be right he has to be able to prove and not just assume democracy work perfectly. Which it doesn’t.

Breyer judges by feeling not on the Constitute and law because he is a Liberal

Is Scalia purposefully saying 'the people' didn't approve x,y, z? Why doesn't he just say Congress could get off there ass and pass a law!

The originalist interpretation is whack. No one knows the minds of those who voted in 1791. If the framers specifically meant to say the death penalty is ok, they would have said it. Instead, they choose to make an ambiguous, interpretable statement about values: cruel and unusual. The level of cruelty society was willing to tolerate was simply different then than today.

Ever time I go to target I locate the Plan B out of imposed fear.