This was a great example of how conversations can be substantive and congenial at the same time.

I'm used to the stupidity of fox news and the Daily Show. I'm getting overwhelmed by the intelligence and real debate. I actually understand the two approaches and can appreciate both sides of the argument.

Breyer and Scalia are both smart as hell. Scalia is just a damn good orator too.

I respect both of these men. Scalia is more aligned with democracy though.

We should expect this level of compassionate debate from our politicians and news agents today. Our pivot to celebrity and entertainment has taken the people away of seeking knowledge, understanding, and objective facts to guide decision to extremes of emotions, personal attacks and propaganda We need to demand our politicians, news hold this standard for our collective health and wellbeing as a society

i want more scalia footage. I've watched everything that's on youtube already

Who here has homework from government

Great content. Thanks for posting this. Justice Breyer's articulation of his framework around 17:00 was helpfully responded to by Scalia in critiquing his last two points right afterward around 19:00. The rejoinder was also helpful around 20:00.

Rest in peace Justice Scalia. I never agreed with your positions but you provoked thought.

The moderator is absolutely fabulous. Interesting questions and totally respectful

Scalia gets along with Breyer pretty well. Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer are actually all good friends.

I think this debate articulates well the difference between the so-called liberal and conservative wings of the supreme court

Scalia is 5 times better in getting his points across.

Justice Breyers incapable of naming one case where he reached a conclusion that he personally disagreed with. there are none!

How did I go 18 years without knowing about Justice Scalia? This guy is so persuasive!

Regarding Justice Breyer's uncertainty about the meaning of "other" in a particular law: if he doesn't think the law is clear enough to be enforced he should strike it down, not pretend he knows what the legislature might or might not have wanted. He's giving himself too much power, the Supreme Court must not take on the role of backup-legislature. The Supreme Court must decide on what the law says, and let the legislature correct errors in the law.

I loved this video, very interesting and very educational.

This was a brilliant man, the Supreme Court and the United States will miss him greatly!!

Scalia's approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation just makes so much more sense to me. He knows what he's looking for, and it has nothing to do with his own preferences; he's looking for the meaning of the text (not the subjective unwritten intent of the people who adopted it). And if the text is 200yrs old, he's trying to figure out the original meaning. Why would you assign a different meaning to the text? That's rewriting the law.

I agree with you completely ... these men are complete GENTLEMEN. This is how our politicians used to handle our affairs, but those days are gone. It's very nice to see that these gentlemen take their jobs very seriously.

Thank you for posting this. It has broaden my mind concerning the issues touched upon.

How the hell did Scalia become a success? He is way to level headed to be as relevant as he is within our government.

Mostly I agree with Justice Breyer. But I understand Justice Scalia's concern and his argument.

Let me say this, I think Scalia is the best at arguing his position/interpretation.

Huge Movement Conservative here folks. Jan Crawford is AWESOME. It's why you don't see her much on CBS....she is WAY to conservative. Thomas is her principle source on the High Court, and her access and writings are brilliant. Her book Supreme Conflict, on the nominations and Confirmations of Roberts and Alito reads like a novel, and there is more substantive behind the scenes information in it than in all other SCOTUS books I've ever read. Cars.

Awesome to see the Justice's on camera. Both very respectful men from the government's highest respected branch.

i thought it interesting that Breyer deflected the question about him concurring with the majority in a case where he found the outcome as deplorable...since he probably can't. his philosophy is contradictory of this conundrum...he looks at the outcome (or at least his interpretation of the outcome) and decides if he likes it or not and votes based on this idea (similar to a legislator). its sad that Breyer's philosophy is mainstream now and anyone that understands this is more interested in who is nominated to the supreme court by the president than the president himself. i hope we can find more Scalia's for the bench!!!!

Thank you Honorable 'Nino' Scalia; what you revived from the days of antiquity lives on and will grow into the 21st Century.

Scalia nails it from 27:30 to the best line around 29:21! Breyer is a politician on the bench; Scalia was a true man of obedience to the Constitution, to the People.

Brown vs. Board of education is a perfect example of a "living constitution" while plessy vs. Ferguson is a perfect example of origionalism.

I find it interesting that two Justices would disagree about the role of the judiciary in such a fundamental way.

Absolutely brilliant performance from Justice Scalia.

Dear God my professor is making me watch this 90 minute video in 240p.

Thank you for posting this.

I generally consider myself to be a moderate Democrat. I have voted for the Democratic nominee in every Presidential election (though I really consider it as two votes against George W. Bush and two for Obama), but I mix it up more in lower ticket races. That being said, I have always had a great respect for Scalia as a legal intellectual. He makes a very persuasive argument for his point of view. This debate is a good example; I sympathize more with Breyer, but find Scalia more convincing.

Mrs Rummell likes "adam's sound system" enthusiastic

Scalia's laugh makes me laugh more than his jocular statements.

Scalia is a true master

Breyer looks like Jeffrey Tambor from Arrested Development and Transparent

Two great debaters!

Do you guys know what case they were talking about?

The issue as I see it is do you want judges to rule based on what they think is just or do you want a judge to rule based on what the rule of law (based on their best interpretation of original intent). Since the role of the courts is not to legislate, you have to go with the latter view. The role of the supreme court is to rule on whether a law violates the constitution or not. Their role is not to decide whether a law is just or not. People can get laws changed by voting in different representatives. Breyer's argument of interpreting words based on modern definitions and values is a broken empty bottle that does not hold water!

I caught myself clapping at the end of this. Such an awesome conversation.

Very stimulating for thought. I see where Breyer is trying to come from but Scalia delivered his message and his argument efficiently. Though I do not favor Scalia and ever thought he was a perfect judge, he makes interesting points. Thanks for sharing this video!

I couldn't disagree more. There's very little in the constitution that the American people object to, so why throw it out? As Scalia frequently explains, if people want progress (ore regress for that matter) you don't need the Constitution to do it. You persuade your fellow man and get Congress to pass a law. That's how a democratic republic works.

6:00 I thought long and hard about the case Scalia is mentioning there. It is one most law students read today in Constitutional law. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989). I agree that the statute was on point, however, considering the length of time that it took these people to assert their claim, there were many creative solutions. Personally, I would choose estoppel by laches. That way, you admit that the law controls, but choose to ignore it because of the unjust result.

Interpreting the law is a very difficult issue, especially for Supreme Court justices. I'm more for Justice Scalia, he is better at elaborating his points. Sad he is not with us any more.

Man, Scalia is a real justice. Breyer is a more of a politician.

Fascinating. The X-factor however to this conversation is integrity. Democracy is 99% integrity and 1% law.

The terms of service on your cell phone contract are longer than the constitution. I like to believe that was by design. The Constitution is beautifully brief, and leaves plenty of room for legislators to pass laws that fit within the framework of the constitution, and for SCOTUS to interpret those laws. To be of the opinion that SCOTUS can strike down laws that fit within the framework of the constitution is absurd. Equally absurd is the belief that when the constitution is not clear, the mandate is to interpret it the way the founders would have almost 250 years ago. I am appreciative for this debate. I feel I can better understand the two schools of thought now. I agree with most commenters that Scalia is a more compelling speaker, but on the content,

The amendment process of the constitution is the method Scalia would like our country to use when a majority wants something to change. Historically, we interpreted the constitution literally up until recent decades.

There's just no limiting principle to anything Breyer says. When you listen to him, it really is, "Whatever you want the result to be, interpret it to get that result." I'm not a huge Scalia fan, but there is at least some safety for the rest of us in his interpretation of the Constitution. With Breyer you just have to hope you are on the "right side of history."

Breyer wants to consider intent of legislators; Scalia wants to argue over word choice.

43:08-46:08: Scalia for the win.

No, he's right. Scalia is one of the best justices in the Supreme Court's history.

Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, Chuck Grassley, Todd Cotton, MTG, Antonin Scalia.

what is their definition of justice?

Somebody tell me what Scalia said at 3:51?

Great video of two very interesting, intelligent, reasonable judges. I've liked both a lot, and both for a long time. Constitutional law, fu*k yea.

Interesting that Scalia stated SCOTUS are not political but rather, there are two judicial philosophies: Originalists (go back to original statute and determine the true meaning of the law) and "Living Constitutionalists", a new philosophy started 50 years ago under the Warren Supreme Court where the Constitution is loose, not exact, and "evolves".

Well, i suppose it depends on how you look at it. I guess if you consider only what Article III says, then you could say that the framers had no intention of the Court acting in an interpretive manner. But if you read Federalist No 78, it discuses the role of the judiciary in interpreting the acts of the legislative branch, which it says cannot be trusted to interpret its own actions. So your point is well taken, but I think one could also argue for an interpretive intent for the Court.

Under Breyers interpretations the Constitution can say anything he thinks it says. Scalia will be missed.

Brown V Board wasnt Judicial Activism if the State Laws denied equal protection of State Laws to its citizens, because that is protected by our Constitution. However, If it were not a matter of State Law then it may have been. That could be why it is legal to discriminate in who you choose to marry, date, live with, socialize with etc.

Enjoyable!

Actually, they very rarely discuss cases among themselves. They simply vote and assign the writing of opinions based on that vote.

Agreed

between 2 ferns: supreme edition

What did Scalia say at 3:51?

Maybe I am missing something in your comment. Race based, gender based, and perhaps even age based segregation de jure (by law) would be virtually impossible in the United States today. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, and the deluge of cases on point for each class; would absolutely make it impossible to accomplish by law.

01:05:30 Affirmative action hasn't brought people together. See this is a problem with judges trying to interpret the consequences of a law, it is difficult to do.

Justice Scalia knew his stuff. He was obviously very intelligent just hear him speak. He was prepared. It’s a shame he is dead. May he Rest In Peace.

I think those who rely too much on original intent and "what the founding fathers thought", miss the true nature of what a constitution is supposed to define. it defines a place and time. it defines applied intent of law and how it is used to address current issues at hand. I never believed the founders or framers of the constitution to have a crystal ball to see into the future and be able to pre determine issues and standards of the day, in future tense. the constitution should be a flexible document that is bound by certain principals applied to modern times.

What is your idea of an effective Supreme Court Justice...?

Ignoring the law because of the unjust result?? What point is there in having law if we can just ignore it?!

OnlyTheWealNeedHelp... You are correct

But that isn't what a corporation is; at least not unless you're talking about a cooperative.

Scalia fails to realize that the Constitution is there to serve the people in the present and that the people are not there to serve the Constitution and that the people do not live in the 18th century anymore. I think that Breyer is right. We live in a democracy and the majority decides, but also that there are boundaries in this democracy, and these boundaries are represented by the Constitution, and that the judges have to decide with regard to the present and rational knowledge of the present on whether certain laws violate these boundaries or not. Basically rational thinking needs to be applied. Scalia fails miserably.

so who exactly gets punished if it makes illegitimate statements?

Can anyone tell me the case Justice Breyer was referring to when he was talking about the prisoners being denied habeus corpus??

21:00 judge discloses what he is doing

Regretfully, I can't listen to what must be interesting. The changing volume levels are much too distracting for me.

Interesting, fascinating even. Is it just me or does one Justice speaks at the people the other to the people. One pontificates one communicates, what does this say about each persons psyche. Would you choose an authoritative figure that speaks at or to you. I think one man feels superior to the people the other feels one of the people.

Scalia owns Breyer - again!

34:00 55:00

23min 40sec

55:15 does he mean Abraham Lincoln?

I have been doing assignments regarding this video over and over again. If your professsor has assigned an assignment on the same, kindly contact me.

Watch at 46:15 how Breyer reverts into bumbling buffoonish Professor mode after Scalia fucking crushes his arguments, and Scalia mercifully withdraws from totally destroying him

Breyer is so wrong when he says even when we yell we talk and exchange ideas.... no... when you yell you aren't listening. I have two questions 1) is this guy a politician or a judge? and 2) must you be that highly educated to be that misguided?

Although he tries to avoid doing so.

This is saddening to listen to those who are supposed to be the most intelligent amongst us and who have been put in positions of trust to not understand the foundational fundamental principles of American jurisprudence. We the People must do a better job instructing our trustees and servants.

Since I’ve been given the ability to share I shant pass it up at this juncture. However I feel it is important to mention that you can’t have a ruling class coexist w a national interest in the discovery channel and all actors and participles respectively- especially when humans are all capable of grave human error- an eye for an eye is not a meme for success…. I’ll add more later but for now let it be said when someone steals your honor and they’re wealthy and the institution makes a way for its ‘ruling class’ it’s tbc… waaaaaa 😭

Butt-fucking was quite popular in ancient Athens, the first modern democracy. They were religious AND an orderly society. These ideas don't conflict. No need for anything to descent into chaos.

It is telling that this three month old video has fewer views than a day old katie holmes gossip.

While I certainly reject Scalia's interpretative framework, he is undeniably a better communicator and a more forceful advocate for his approach than is Justice Breyer.

At 43:57 Scalia is complaining about how judges have found more expansive concepts of rights over time, and he says that no one thought the Bill of Rights gave a right to abortion, homosexuality, etc. This is a patently OBVIOUS legal error: those rights come from Substantive Due Process, a part of the 14th Amendment, which is a post-Civil War Amendment, not a founding era amendment. If Scalia is going to insist so hard that we MUST use history, and NOTHING ELSE, then he and other originalists could at the very least not mix up where we're supposed to be analyzing the history from. Originalist judges make this error all the time: They'll have a Due Process or Equal Protection question in front of them, and they'll start talking about the founding era, not the post-Civil War era, when the whole point of the 14th Amendment is that it expanded the nation's concept of rights to be far greater than what it was originally: many legal historians analogize the post-Civil War period as being like a second founding. This is something Scalia might understand if he had any actual understanding of History as a discipline. But nice that Scalia thinks that discarding our most important rights is a "piece of cake".

Justice Bryer, the perpetual, hawker of his own books.

I am appalled by what I hear here how Judges would decide a case at all.. that some would befit from a judgment and others would suffer from a judgment based solely upon the majority of people benefiting from the judgement they make.. not whether they make a right and just judgment, but whom they an please the most. Least the masses might not like a ruling.. as long as the majority likes it, then you can keep your job because the majority of the people will accept it, but its devastating to anyone whom it did not benefit even though the law being applied is not in keeping with truth and true justice at all.. I wonder if Roe vs Wade was such a decision?? I wonder, well if we make the women happy, then we can keep our jobs, it may be unpleasant to many people but the majority of people will accept it and so we will simply go by the majority rule.. forget the babies which will get murdered in the case.. after all, they will not have a voice in this, they will all be silenced.. as that is how we serve justice to those who would not like our decisions, we simply eliminate them.. You judges sicken me.. the day is coming you are going to meet the true judge and you will give account for what you do.. and most of you are simply enslaving all of man kind having stole their ID ENTITY via the birth certificate and creating legal fictional names and attaching the living man to the legal fiction so as to enslave them.. you are the most pathetic people this planet has ever known.. JOHN DOE the legal fiction is the name called but John of the Doe Family is the one you expect to take the rap.. you own JOHN DOE, and may enslave JOHN DOE being a dead legal fiction corporation trust no different then if you owned APPLE or MICROSOFT.. all legal fiction corporations.. but human beings, the living man or woman, you have no control over at all, as all men are created equal which means no man has any right whatsoever to make any law and bind it upon another man ever.. there is but one law maker and one only.. God.. and all authority resides in Jesus Christ which means no man has authority over another man save Jesus Christ.. all your statutes, codes regulations acts and what have you bind to nobody without their giving you their express consent with full disclosure and equal consideration going both ways.. but we all know that has never happened.. you have instead chosen slavery of the people.. but its all coming to an end!! The people will be free as God will free His people and he will not at all acquit the wicked.. and you folks are wicked!!

59:45

A strong constructionist vs a liberal and the truth is we need both on the court. Both have excellent points. In my opinion, Breyer is the more dangerous threat to our system because if he is left unchecked he will erode the constitution as the values of society erode. Together they check each other and hopefully this will slow the decline of society.