Justice Scalia on Citizens United (C-SPAN)

  Рет қаралды 75,302

C-SPAN

C-SPAN

12 жыл бұрын

During a C-SPAN Q&A interview, Justice Antonin Scalia discusses Citizens United. Watch the complete interview on Sunday, July 29 at 8:00 p.m. ET on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN: As a person, do you worry at all that there's too much money in politics?
SCALIA: No. You know, I really don't. I forget what the figures are but I think we spend less on our presidential campaigns each year, when there's a presidential election than the country spends on cosmetics.
C-SPAN: What about the unusual amount of influence? You know, people are worried that the corporations now can buy --
SCALIA: I think this is a real conduit. If you believe that we ought to go back to monarchy. That the people are such sheep that they just swallow whatever they see on television or read in the newspapers? No. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true from the false. At least, when as the campaign laws require, you know who is speaking. You can't speak anonymously. You have to say, you have to identify the people that are giving the message.
C-SPAN: But we don't know who speaking right now.
SCALIA: You know the organization that's speaking.
C-SPAN: Not necessarily. You know they don't have to, we don't need to go into the details, but in some of this the way some of this money is being raised we will never know.
SCALIA: You may not know who contributes to the organization, you know the organization that's speaking.
C-SPAN: So that's all you need to know? You don't need to know that they're hiding behind their --
SCALIA: Well, the press can find out, you know, who's hiding behind what. That's not hard, you can tell... Anyway, the premise is freedom of speech. The more speech the better. I cannot understand why...well...and as far as Citizens United, don't forget Citizens United was not novel. It reversed an opinion eight years earlier that had changed the law from what the law had been in Buckley vs. Veleo that was assumed to be the law.

Пікірлер: 272
@patrickmccormack4318
@patrickmccormack4318 5 жыл бұрын
We can narrate galactic-sized holes in the rational for Citizens United.
@pettypettywoodchuck2
@pettypettywoodchuck2 10 жыл бұрын
COSMETICS IS PROBABLY A FUCK TON OF MONEY!
@Kimmis1990
@Kimmis1990 11 жыл бұрын
But now Justice Scalia, A million people can give 400 dollars each, and we`ll be drowned out by one person writing one check.
@tredaviousbowser7931
@tredaviousbowser7931 Жыл бұрын
That’s the issue. One million? It is our own fault for not being actively involved in voting. Corporations just come in and fill that empty space we all just don’t care about and still get angry when we don’t see change
@Harbingerintheflesh
@Harbingerintheflesh 8 жыл бұрын
"We spend less on our Presidential campaigns each year, ... than the country pends on cosmetics" Really? How is that even an argument.
@jameseames4754
@jameseames4754 3 жыл бұрын
If we took regulatory power away from the federal government, less money would be spent on federal elections.
@adambycina1817
@adambycina1817 Жыл бұрын
He died on a rich Republican donor's ranch. Go figure.
@justindeaton1611
@justindeaton1611 7 ай бұрын
It's not.
@Black_Caucus
@Black_Caucus 7 ай бұрын
You are actually brain-dead if you believe that 'taking regulatory power away from the FCC would lead to less money being spent in elections'. It's absolutely fucking absurd on it's face. It's the equivalent of saying that if you take one of the wheels out of a car, it is somehow going to drive faster and much smoother down the road. It's just objectively stupid. Citizens United was over a decade ago and the amount of money spent on elections has continuously broken records, every, single, year. The judiciary completely destroyed almost all regulatory power that the FEC had, we now have little to no regulations of elections and spending, and it's at all time highs every year. How do you explain that, dipshit?@@jameseames4754
@hazyhalfmoon
@hazyhalfmoon 12 жыл бұрын
In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
@angetpanget
@angetpanget 3 жыл бұрын
"The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent"?
@mrreggin1
@mrreggin1 8 жыл бұрын
Has anyone asked Scalia how he can justify that spending money equals speech? Or can anyone who does believe that explain it to me, because it makes no sense.
@marksnow9438
@marksnow9438 8 жыл бұрын
+Zohair Naqvi Paying to support a particular message, to me, can easily be seen as an expression of free speech. To limit who I am allowed to pay to express my views, which organizations or parties or figures I want to support whom I agree with, certainly seems like a contradiction to 'freedom'. No?
@mrreggin1
@mrreggin1 8 жыл бұрын
+Mark Snow Right, I see what you mean, but I think a distinction should be made between the average person and an organization with extensive resources. How can the United States be "of the people, by the people, for the people" if the people are having their voice curtailed by money in politics? To me, I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and with Scalia having been an originalist you would think he would've kept that in mind, no?
@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806
@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806 8 жыл бұрын
+Mark Snow So in other words, if every dollar = one "unit" of speech, that means that the Koch brothers get 43.3 BILLION units of speech, and your average normal American gets ONE. So, in other words, just two men get more right to speak than ALL Americans combined, minus a few OTHER billionaires and the giant corporations. Does that sound like democracy to you? This is especially disturbing when you see the statistics about elections. Basically, the campaigns that have more money ALWAYS win. That's not democracy, it's a very expensive, wasteful, and inefficient form of oligarchy. The United States of America has been an oligarchy for decades, but Citizens United solidified it so that now nobody can even deny it.
@marksnow9438
@marksnow9438 8 жыл бұрын
SystemsOverSymptoms VisionWithVenture if campaigns with the most money always win, then why is Jeb Bush doing so poorly? The facts you claim exist, don't exist at all, Just because a campaign is flush with money doesn't mean they will be supported by a majority of the electorate. Heck, even use Ron Paul as an example. He raised more money than any other candidate in history up until that point, yet never even got 1st place in a state.
@marksnow9438
@marksnow9438 8 жыл бұрын
Where do you come up with this 'unit of speech' nonsense, anyway? Talk about a red herring....
@williamz8330
@williamz8330 4 жыл бұрын
Scalia did not understand the question being asked at 1:00. The question was about corporations influencing policy-making decisions of elected officials as a result of having contributed unlimited and unregulated sums of money to their political campaigns. Scalia answered his own make-believe question about campaigns outspending each other on press and how that influences elections themselves.
@TravelinBand747
@TravelinBand747 Жыл бұрын
And his earlier straw-man argument/false equivalency about the country spending more on cosmetics than on a presidential election. That’s such a fucking deflection and his smug and dismissive attitude showed exactly how damn out of touch he really was.
@rievans57
@rievans57 Жыл бұрын
Scalia was many things, but naive was not one of them. He understood the impact of Citizens United. He also understood why it was implimented. Rich powerful white folks are not going to relinquish control of this country over to women and/or brown skin liberal people. Scalia was in on the deal.
@TampaTayza
@TampaTayza 8 жыл бұрын
Scalia's presumption of an educated voter seems to place that burden on corporate media. Our media today is no longer in the business of educating the viewer. Sensationalism and subjective reporting have polarized the masses. How can the average citizen discern the truth?
@goldfishi5776
@goldfishi5776 5 жыл бұрын
Maung Tayza it’s not the media’s responsibility to educate the masses. No more than I would expect any individual to function against their own self interest. The best protection of freedom is to protect no one.
@harshitmadan6449
@harshitmadan6449 4 жыл бұрын
You don't deserve to vote if your decisions are based on what mainstream media parrots.
@euphegenia
@euphegenia 4 жыл бұрын
Goldfish I Well, considering media outlets like The Washington Post think that they’re “beacons of truth” by making statements like “democracy dies in darkness”, they ought to feel an obligation to simply state facts and to stay away from sensationalism.
@cazman182
@cazman182 10 ай бұрын
@@harshitmadan6449 Then how do you realistically become better informed as a voter? When crucial decisions are buried in complex reports, issues that are beyond layman's understanding become voter issues, and you have to learn all of this after coming home from a hard day's work - what chance do you as an average citizen have?
@kisa4748
@kisa4748 3 жыл бұрын
oh scalia you poor summer child
@ottototo8
@ottototo8 4 жыл бұрын
"Person isn't used in the First Amendment." ???? How many corporations signed the Constitution you human paraguat!
@geanx5678
@geanx5678 8 жыл бұрын
"We spend a lot less on presidential campaigns each year, when there is a presidential election, than the country spends on cosmetics". What kind of idiotic analogy is that?
@gschaaf713
@gschaaf713 8 жыл бұрын
+Gianni Jaffa He's manipulating the argument into whether or not the people are smart enough to see through political ads, that is not the argument. The argument is that these "donations" to elected officials political campaigns will put pressure on them to represent the needs of their wealthy contributors and not the needs of the people. While citizens united should be upheld, there also should have been some legislation put in place to block the formation of things like super pacs. You can thank our inefficient congress, working for their wealthy contributors, for that. A catch-22.
@TomBarbashev
@TomBarbashev 3 ай бұрын
One of the few things he's said that was a weak argument. Pretty bad though.
@sonyasteinbeisser1941
@sonyasteinbeisser1941 10 жыл бұрын
People using words = Speech. People using money = Power and Influence. Anyone who says money = Speech just wants to use that power and influence to their advantage.
@martthesling
@martthesling 9 жыл бұрын
You needed money to buy the computer to type on your key board to write something on KZfaq. I guess I can ban your money in using it to purchase a laptop.
@Jonmad17
@Jonmad17 8 жыл бұрын
+Sonya Steinbeisser It's not about the money, it's about people being allowed to use their resources to facilitate speech. If you're against Citizens United, then you think that the government should be able to decide who gets to disseminate their speech where. Even the ACLU supports Citizens United.
@efranbadadolui1955
@efranbadadolui1955 8 жыл бұрын
+Jonmad17 Complete BS. Then again, perhaps I'm wrong. So, +Jonmad17, let's see the proof that I'm wrong and that you are right. I'm asking for proof, not subjective, policical BS +Jonmad17. Perhaps we should start with the ALCU supporting Citizens United, since you mentioned that. Do they really support Citizens United? From their website on their official position on Citizens United: "We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech." So, +Jonmad17, from this, I'd really like to know how you can say that the ACLU supports Citizens United.
@moqui5783
@moqui5783 7 жыл бұрын
Jonmad17 So what the ACLU is wrong on this issue. How can an LLC be considered a person?
@dcoch
@dcoch 6 жыл бұрын
Completely untrue. Flag burning is free speech. Cross burning is free speech. The freedom to speak is also the freedom not to speak, so no words = free speech. Can you purchase ad space on a billboard without money? Can the media reach the masses without money? Would you know who any Presidential candidate if money wasn't spent to broadcast his or her message?
@paulcox2865
@paulcox2865 9 жыл бұрын
Scalia is a smart man but he is being intellectually dishonest here. To say that knowing the organization behind the ad is sufficient knowledge of any person behind the ad is way shady. Or that its OK for corporations to give unlimited amounts of money because other industries spend more, and money spent shouldn't affect intelligent peoples' decisions in voting. Citizens United follows a similar path of dishonesty.
@husseintoney
@husseintoney 9 жыл бұрын
Paul Cox He is right. What about news media? they have a huge influence. Should we ban political news papers and news channels during election cycles who operate by huge sums of money?
@gerardocharles5850
@gerardocharles5850 7 жыл бұрын
His point is actually perfectly valid. The money spent by corporations isn't a bribe, it's simply an added information for voters to listen to. If the premise of those that want to limit corporate and union donations to Political Action Committees is that they have too much influence then what's to say that some logic should not be applied to other sectors such as the press or political ads ran by Hollywood elites. I agree we should have more disclosure on where the donations come from but it is the congress, not the judiciary, whose role it is to implement said regulations.
@pfitge1
@pfitge1 6 жыл бұрын
So the answer is to restrict speech rather than fix the law?
@Danielrules
@Danielrules 6 жыл бұрын
Wow I am officially no longer a republican after watching this.
@kevinp6581
@kevinp6581 4 жыл бұрын
Based on you profile picture, you were likely not a Republican to begin with.
@otarisuxiashvili22
@otarisuxiashvili22 3 жыл бұрын
@@kevinp6581 jfk has nothing to do with current dems
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
Do you really think there should be a salary cap on free speech?
@munchmacuchi7502
@munchmacuchi7502 2 жыл бұрын
@@razaahmad9133 Yes.
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
@@munchmacuchi7502 so you would force private citizens to only spend a certain amount on publishing newspapers and spreading pamphlets? That idea is deeply undemocratic and undermines our system of disseminating information and political opinions for the sake of persuading our fellow citizens As he says: the more speech the better
@commonsense31
@commonsense31 6 жыл бұрын
He is very intelligent but he knows that the decision to equal money to free speech is wrong.
@itsbeyondme5560
@itsbeyondme5560 2 жыл бұрын
Ha😂😂
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
Answer this: Do you really think there should be a salary cap on free speech?
@commonsense31
@commonsense31 2 жыл бұрын
@@razaahmad9133 Money has nothing to do with Free Speech. If the amount of Money determines how much influence you have in a democratic society. As it is today.
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
@@commonsense31 how can you separate the money used for the speech from the speech itself Should privately owned newspapers be limited to only spending a certain amount of money on publishing their paper? Should people be monitored and controlled as to how many signs they can put up in their front lawn?
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
People who are arguing against this decision, answer this: Should there be a salary cap on free speech?
@crysiscore2051
@crysiscore2051 2 жыл бұрын
Was the constitution written for a country of 300 million people?
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
@@crysiscore2051 the constitution was agreed to by the people If the people wish for it to be altered to adjust for anything new (ex. Larger populations) then they can do so via the amendment process
@TomBarbashev
@TomBarbashev 3 ай бұрын
​@@crysiscore2051What number was it written for? That makes no sense
@Desertphile
@Desertphile 8 ай бұрын
He just stood there lying, and he knows we know he was lying, but he just kept on lying.
@williamdennisbrownjr
@williamdennisbrownjr 12 жыл бұрын
Saclia has become a Circus Act.
@SuperGenericguy
@SuperGenericguy 4 ай бұрын
1:00 -“Do you feel there’s too much money in politics?” -“We ought to go back to a monarchy”
@oneromnala
@oneromnala 12 жыл бұрын
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
@CaptianJohnGlanton
@CaptianJohnGlanton 11 жыл бұрын
What a great analogy: "I think we spend less on our presidential campaigns each year, when there's a presidential election than the country spends on cosmetics". Cosmetics? He says it dismissively, as if it's some insignificant number. It's billions of dollars.
@evanb4189
@evanb4189 2 жыл бұрын
And the issue is that most of that comes from the wealthy. 50% of donations last cycle came from
@chopsddy3
@chopsddy3 10 жыл бұрын
This guy needs a powdered wig.
@MinisterAilingTongue
@MinisterAilingTongue 12 жыл бұрын
It's not a question of intelligence. It's a matter of ignorance and will. People are fed misinformation and are content. That's why the corporate persons fuck us in the ass.
@nsecchi1
@nsecchi1 9 жыл бұрын
Scalia should beware of mixing narcotics and alcohol.
@Ace7XX
@Ace7XX 11 жыл бұрын
great comment
@sisenor4091
@sisenor4091 5 жыл бұрын
He got nervous very quick.
@LudwigVonFriedman
@LudwigVonFriedman 11 жыл бұрын
exactly! and i'd like him to explain how that constitutes 'free speech'
@MinisterAilingTongue
@MinisterAilingTongue 12 жыл бұрын
I love Brian Lamb.
@thewaffle003
@thewaffle003 Ай бұрын
We makin' it to hell with this one boys.
@Alexander_Lorincz
@Alexander_Lorincz 5 жыл бұрын
Scalia was an extremely intelligent guy but Jesus did he get this one wrong.
@thewaffle003
@thewaffle003 Ай бұрын
Nothin' to do with Jesus here, pal. This is the work of the Devil.
@viewfromthehighchair9391
@viewfromthehighchair9391 10 ай бұрын
The man cemented his legacy as a complete scumbag. No respect asked for; no respect given.
@justindeaton1611
@justindeaton1611 7 ай бұрын
It doesn't matte who we vote for because, on the issues that matter, they have already bought both sides.
@baronsecuna
@baronsecuna 4 жыл бұрын
Corporations BUY political control ....if you repeat something enough times it becomes the truth ...the more one sided speech the better ...
@jameseames4754
@jameseames4754 3 жыл бұрын
government education is the answer.
@husseintoney
@husseintoney 9 жыл бұрын
He is right. What about news media? they have a huge influence. Should we ban political news papers and news channels during election cycles who operate by huge sums of money?
@husseintoney
@husseintoney 8 жыл бұрын
+PriVacy Matters Who get to decide who is bias? Everyone calls the other side a bias. Plus the Constitution gurentees freedom of speech.
@thewaffle003
@thewaffle003 Ай бұрын
We all get to decide. News people, pundits, and commentators should be required by law to give air to all sides of an issue.
@evanb4189
@evanb4189 2 жыл бұрын
The amount of $ spent isnt the problem, it is the fact it is almost entirely coming from the richest of the rich.
@gailg1458
@gailg1458 9 ай бұрын
Scalia wasn't ever the brightest bulb in the pack
@TomBarbashev
@TomBarbashev 2 ай бұрын
You're not even in the pack. He's by far one of thr brightest bulbs on the SC ever. Period.
@efranbadadolui1955
@efranbadadolui1955 8 жыл бұрын
Is it not strange that we cannot see who likes others comments? But there's more: Here we have two comments that were posted over one month or more floating to the top and yet there are at least two comments that were posted much earlier. Shouldn't comments be historical for this format? Looks like I need to rethink thinking that KZfaq is real social media. I guess we should have never thought of KZfaq as anything more than a media entertainment site.
@nyce611
@nyce611 11 жыл бұрын
Look at his body language when the question is brought up he folded his arms sits back in his chair he's uncomfortable talking about it because he knows there is no proper justification for that ruling. he contradicts himself in less then a minute at first he says the people are not just going to believe the media then he says the media should inform the people on who is donating the campaign funds. which one is it should the people trust the media to be honest or not you can't have it both ways
@jameseames4754
@jameseames4754 3 жыл бұрын
Believe half of what you read and none of what you see on television
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
If you disagree with citizens United, answer this: Should there really be a salary cap on free speech?
@nyce6113
@nyce6113 2 жыл бұрын
@@razaahmad9133 oxymoron if you have to pay for it it's not free so what are you talking about a salary cap. If free speech was free then why would you need a salary to speak? What you just said is an oxymoron
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
@@nyce6113 I’m pointing how stupid it is to be against this decision The whole point of the rhetorical question here is to show the idiocy of limiting speech or the money that produces it Tell me if you want to put a cap as to how much companies can speak then aren’t you going to have to limit newspapers and monitor their budget? What about political writings, are you going to cap publishers as to how many books related to politics they can sell?
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
@@nyce6113 saying that if you have to pay for it it’s not free and therefore speech can’t be free is like saying there is no free press because it costs money to buy a printing press If you’re freedoms were only limited to things that do not cost any money then your rights would fluctuate based on the market cycle Actually one of the dumber things I’ve ever heard
@cbrusharmy
@cbrusharmy 10 жыл бұрын
We are sheep, Justice.
@lunarpoetry1015
@lunarpoetry1015 10 жыл бұрын
Oh justice Scalia. History books will remember you as in infamous villain in the narrative of American history.
@taffysaur
@taffysaur 7 жыл бұрын
_"the premise of democracy is that people are intelligent..."_ fair play, scalia, but when the system is *so* broken, and shamelessly partisan, and yes _rigged,_ then it becomes a *lot* more of an obstacle for them to surmount. people are busy, they have jobs to do, families to provide for. they have to be able to expect a _reasonable good faith attempt at objectivity_ in their journalism or the game just isn't fair. they aren't playing by the rules. they've perverted the system possibly beyond repair. and it isn't going to change unless people are allowed to see the truth. shall i break out the pie charts showing us how much relative time trump's _possible_ infidelities vs. wikileaks or project veritas..? does anyone actually think it's going to show a fair fight..?
@breakdancinfool
@breakdancinfool 3 жыл бұрын
This is a politician not a judge
@TomBarbashev
@TomBarbashev 2 ай бұрын
You're simple
@emjay2045
@emjay2045 3 ай бұрын
Need to speak about his “mysterious death “ that was a cover up !
@BlueUKLouis
@BlueUKLouis 3 жыл бұрын
Probably one of the worst justices ever.
@nickholt7783
@nickholt7783 Ай бұрын
Money… isn’t… speech!
@viciousaidan2613
@viciousaidan2613 2 жыл бұрын
I swear almost no one understands Citizens United.
@smujismuj
@smujismuj 12 жыл бұрын
From the Scalia to English Dictionary: "Freedom of Speech": Speech equals Money
@KnivesOfTheRound
@KnivesOfTheRound 10 жыл бұрын
The Nixon arm fold.
@TheMrSEBSTER
@TheMrSEBSTER 7 жыл бұрын
People, money does not equal free speech!! free speech is an equal right of every citizen. money is unequally distributed and accumulated in the wealthy businesses and billionaire class, meaning that if money equals free speech, they must have more free speech than us. it is just a ridiculous statement. of course, contributions can be allowed to candidates by each and every citizen, but these contributions should be limited and monitored. only in america does this stupid fucking debate even exist. I live in the UK where there are very strict campaign finance laws, and we don't live under some oppressive totalitarian one party state! AMERICA, you need to get a grip, you have been bought out by the oligarchy! take back your democracy!
@bobchannell3553
@bobchannell3553 3 жыл бұрын
I didn't know a lot about Justice Scalia, but after that answer, I do. I've listened to it three times, but it's so awful, I just don't know what to say, and that's a video of less than three minutes. I'm glad he's not on the Supreme Court today.
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
If you disagree with the decision answer this: Should there really be a salary cap on free speech?
@bobchannell3553
@bobchannell3553 2 жыл бұрын
@@razaahmad9133 No, but using money to control the government should be.
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
@@bobchannell3553 I mean flat out bribery and specific legislative promises are already illegal (granted enforcement is tough) What I would say is that if you hate overspending, vote for the candidates who don’t take lots of money from donors It’s fairly easy to find out who is getting money from who so just factor that into your decision
@BlueJDMMR2
@BlueJDMMR2 5 жыл бұрын
He makes a far better corpse than SCOTUS justice
@razaahmad9133
@razaahmad9133 2 жыл бұрын
Mocking a man’s death is horrific Additionally if you don’t like citizens United then answer this: Should there really be a salary cap on free speech?
@EdgarHernandez-dq4vj
@EdgarHernandez-dq4vj 6 ай бұрын
Worst ruling since the “separate but equal” decision. The premise here is ridiculous: Corporation = Person Money = Speech Absolutely laughable logic
@sklanger
@sklanger 12 жыл бұрын
Statistics show you're lying. "More than two-thirds of the losing incumbents in elections from 1980 through 2002 outspent the winning challenger; on average, losers outspent their opponents by $133,000 ($862,000 to 729,000)." Brady & Johnston, Capturing Campaign Effects 206 (2006).
@sklanger
@sklanger 11 жыл бұрын
It constitutes free speech because you are free to spend whatever you want on speech. Free doesn't mean equality of outcome, otherwise the government would be able to ban movies with big budgets because they "drown out" movies with small budgets.
@DoctorOfDisbelief
@DoctorOfDisbelief 12 жыл бұрын
Newspaper editors at the largest papers in the US regularly identify as liberal vs conservative by about an 8:1 ratio, and they promote liberal candidates for president almost uniformly. Newspapers are corporations. Their free speech is never questioned even though they are spending their corporation funds to promote candidates. Why are newspaper corporations not listed as campaign contributors?
@lenovo7999
@lenovo7999 10 ай бұрын
Scalia eliminated the fairness doctrine too
@jonnietruth4083
@jonnietruth4083 11 жыл бұрын
CAN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BE IMPEACHED ??
@marshalldonnelley7667
@marshalldonnelley7667 8 жыл бұрын
Well, I only listened to this 2:36 minute clip, not the longer interview, but Scalia - even though I disagree with a lot of what he says - was sharp 20 years ago. Here he sounds tired, confused, uninformed, and like he's not able to think clearly. It sounds like he needs to retire. Maybe he was having an off day, but, if he wasn't, this is more disturbing because I see this was over three years ago now. Yike.
@PinguWithAnM
@PinguWithAnM 12 жыл бұрын
Banternin Scalia
@marksnow9438
@marksnow9438 8 жыл бұрын
INB4 herd mentality mocks a dead man
@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806
@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806 8 жыл бұрын
+Mark Snow It's not right to mock a neighbour you didn't like, who passed away in your community. We all know that. But when a polarizing public figure dies, we always have the right to discuss. The reason is this: there is great danger in glossing over the bad parts of what the person did, and creating artificial heroes. Clearly, you are conservative. Well, this applies to liberals too. You won't see me complain if you mock a famous liberal who dies, but you will see me argue what are the facts. Scalia was all for States' rights, EXCEPT when they did not fit his political agenda. Then, he was against States' rights, as he was in Bush v. Gore. In short, he was a hypocrite who perverted the law to suit his own political ideology. He certainly was not an originalist, as he claimed, as he stated that the Constitution favoured Christianity, when it clearly says MANY times that Government shall not make laws about religion, establish a state religion, etc, and the Founding Fathers, like Jefferson, repeatedly said that the USA was not a country founded on the principles of ANY religion...
@marksnow9438
@marksnow9438 8 жыл бұрын
I am not a conservative at all, but you just made a glaring intellectual error. You claim the constitution says "many times" something it never even says once. "Separation of church and state" is no where in the constitution. Also, I'm a non-believing right-wing anarchist and trust me, NONE of this lines up to my beliefs.
@sneakerpimp1977
@sneakerpimp1977 3 жыл бұрын
@@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806 this man was an enemy of democracy. Glad he's dead so can no longer harm the United States of America.
@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806
@systemsoversymptomsvisionw9806 3 жыл бұрын
@@marksnow9438 First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article IV: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They were not silent on religion. (1) reference to affirmations. An "Affirmation" is basically an oath, but without reference to any god - it's an oath that atheists can make. (2) No religious tests. The framers clearly sought to prohibit any religious criterion being used to allow or restrict someone from being a lawmaker. (3) And Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ... It's pretty clear that the framers did not want either to favour one religion over another, nor to allow any religious criteria to be used as a gatekeeper as to whether any person can become a lawmaker. As well, they specifically contemplated oaths for non-religeous people (i.e. affirmations). In short, you are wrong, and this can be proved with a 15 second google search on "Constitution" and "religion".
@Meex1989
@Meex1989 7 жыл бұрын
The Supreme Court is better off with 8 justices than with him on the bench.
@georgekosko5124
@georgekosko5124 3 жыл бұрын
Lots of coping from leftoids in the comment section
@P0RKINS2
@P0RKINS2 4 жыл бұрын
I love how none of the commenters actually know how to interpret the law and am glad none of them serve on the Supreme Court.
@projectjt3149
@projectjt3149 6 жыл бұрын
I see the likes and dislikes. I see that they're almost the same number of each. Scalia in a nutshell
@mellow5123
@mellow5123 5 жыл бұрын
Great interviewer. Scalia gop hack.
@maxplank1196
@maxplank1196 5 жыл бұрын
If U wanna B a Grifter watch this guy ...very slick....also good interviewer.
@rievans57
@rievans57 2 ай бұрын
When a conservative uses figurative speech, duck!
@heavenlypatriarchDM
@heavenlypatriarchDM 2 жыл бұрын
I like his point of perspective, do we really think just because Corporation/Union Group A can spend $XXXXXX amount of money that people will just automatically listen to whatever Corporation/Union Group A says? Lobbying is the problem, mores than how money is spent in an election. But ultimately it's up to people to decide in their own minds with their vote in an election.
@brianguygilmore5225
@brianguygilmore5225 2 жыл бұрын
it has been proven time and time again that yes. Money wins. Corporate persuasion works too. If it didn't corporations would not spend billons on persuasion night after night on television, radio, and social media.
@adambycina1817
@adambycina1817 Жыл бұрын
That's not how propaganda works otherwise why would you need money?? The money is ALL for propaganda because it works. Lie. Repeat the Lie. Repeat again and again until no one remembers what the truth originally was. Scalia is being intentionally disingenious with this ridiculous argument.
@7u655
@7u655 11 ай бұрын
This listened to Q! You are wrong and completely ignorant a year ago lol
@ScarletRed.
@ScarletRed. 4 жыл бұрын
Who bought this judge?
@lao5610
@lao5610 6 жыл бұрын
Scalia is the poster child of cognitive dissonance. He was a great intellectual but he held his beliefs so close that he never had the chance to question them. As a result, he never could see the possible downsides to the policies he agreed with.
@teodorradosavljevic9897
@teodorradosavljevic9897 7 жыл бұрын
What a great man. Standing up for our Liberty.
@neilpemberton5523
@neilpemberton5523 2 жыл бұрын
So who are you speaking for- Bezos, Musk or Zuckerberg?
@Dvdrm0
@Dvdrm0 Жыл бұрын
Ages like milk
@harrysadlermusic
@harrysadlermusic 12 жыл бұрын
This interview tells me one thing: Scalia has an POOR EXCUSE for everything.
@bdhxhekwndsk
@bdhxhekwndsk 11 жыл бұрын
Yes, they have to basically commit treason.
@Tripp393
@Tripp393 6 жыл бұрын
Tbh I now agree with him. The citizens are smart and must fight back.
@thewaffle003
@thewaffle003 Жыл бұрын
Yeah, against his idiot decision.
@enverpasha55
@enverpasha55 11 жыл бұрын
I have met this man. He is a nice guy. BUT he is a poltical judge. Read SMITH. He misquotes precident, which means he is a joke. Yet he is smart....just not honest.
@votejoiner
@votejoiner 12 жыл бұрын
Exactly, if a TV ad can control someone's vote, then we have a problem in this society that is MUCH bigger than corporate money.
@smujismuj
@smujismuj 12 жыл бұрын
:D
@youngolf1
@youngolf1 2 жыл бұрын
What he never addressed is the INFLUENCE of this money from Citizens…..that is the killer
@DavidJohnsonFromSeattle
@DavidJohnsonFromSeattle Жыл бұрын
He isn't supposed to! His job is to interpret the law. And that is what he did. The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about restricting free speech to individuals. The gov can do nothing to restrict it. Period the end.
@nyce611
@nyce611 11 жыл бұрын
love this comment people complain all the time without getting involved or without even voting in democracy the people get the government they deserve people need to be engaged and active in politics it's our duty. instead they cry and complain like children
@krkrtl11
@krkrtl11 4 ай бұрын
Shame.
@powlemann
@powlemann 6 жыл бұрын
I'm glad he's not around anymore.
@votejoiner
@votejoiner 12 жыл бұрын
1:07 - 1:25 EXACTLY. The responsibility is on the people. Use your head and campaign finance won't matter, AT ALL.
@lesslycepeda9693
@lesslycepeda9693 8 жыл бұрын
Ugh...
@efranbadadolui1955
@efranbadadolui1955 8 жыл бұрын
+Lessly Cepeda Please fix your profile picture please. It's kind of scary.
@efranbadadolui1955
@efranbadadolui1955 8 жыл бұрын
+Efran Badadolui I have to agree. Your pic makes you look kind of scary. Pretty strange, actually. But, perhaps that is the "look" you want?
@markreilly7052
@markreilly7052 Жыл бұрын
Scalia was an awful justice.
@cesart513
@cesart513 3 жыл бұрын
BUT, 47% are sheep!
@mikepeine3898
@mikepeine3898 7 жыл бұрын
smother him
@michaeleldredge4279
@michaeleldredge4279 11 жыл бұрын
Let me see if I understand your position. You believe people are ignorant. Therefore the government should place restrictions on communication so that they are protected from anyone who would manipulate them. I would guess that you would disagree with the above statement, but if you are in favor of overturning the Citizens United case this would be the effective outcome of what you advocate.
@tvlangsam
@tvlangsam 8 жыл бұрын
Possibly the most intelligent man in America right there. Thanks for your hard work Justice Scalia!
@fil777100
@fil777100 8 жыл бұрын
+TheSnorkeler daaaaa...
@4rcowboy
@4rcowboy 8 жыл бұрын
+TheSnorkeler Yes free Americans, Like this gun owning liberal right here! go back to your double wide.
@gschaaf713
@gschaaf713 8 жыл бұрын
+TheSnorkeler He's manipulating the argument into whether or not the people are smart enough to see through political ads, that is not the argument. Unfortunately a lot of fools like you buy right into that because it inflates your ego. The argument is that these "donations" to elected officials political campaigns will put pressure on them to represent the needs of their wealthy contributors and not the needs of the people. While citizens united should be upheld, there also should have been some legislation put in place to block the formation of things like super pacs. You can thank our inefficient congress, working for their wealthy contributors, for that. A catch-22.
@tvlangsam
@tvlangsam 8 жыл бұрын
gschaaf713 You want money out of politics? STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GROW THE GOVERNMENT! We need as much campaign finance for people looking to shrink the government as possible. We can't give the upper hand to moronic billionaires like Trump or lying, populist demagogues like Sanders.
@gschaaf713
@gschaaf713 8 жыл бұрын
TheSnorkeler I feel like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why You Can Buy The Next President | Citizens United v. FEC
6:04
A teacher captured the cutest moment at the nursery #shorts
00:33
Fabiosa Stories
Рет қаралды 19 МЛН
Cool Items! New Gadgets, Smart Appliances 🌟 By 123 GO! House
00:18
123 GO! HOUSE
Рет қаралды 17 МЛН
Playing hide and seek with my dog 🐶
00:25
Zach King
Рет қаралды 33 МЛН
Amazing weight loss transformation !! 😱😱
00:24
Tibo InShape
Рет қаралды 57 МЛН
Obama on Citizens United Ruling
2:59
The New York Times
Рет қаралды 45 М.
The Great Dissent: Justice Scalia's Opinion in Morrison v. Olson
15:05
The Federalist Society
Рет қаралды 420 М.
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC
8:51
The Story of Stuff Project
Рет қаралды 949 М.
Justice Scalia Writes Guide for Interpreting the Law
10:04
PBS NewsHour
Рет қаралды 86 М.
Scalia: Portrait of a Man & Jurist [Excerpt]
8:44
The Federalist Society
Рет қаралды 100 М.
Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's lasting friendship
2:08
CBS Evening News
Рет қаралды 166 М.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
1:01:32
C-SPAN
Рет қаралды 183 М.
Debate: Was Citizens United Wrongly Decided?
1:29:10
The Federalist Society
Рет қаралды 7 М.
A teacher captured the cutest moment at the nursery #shorts
00:33
Fabiosa Stories
Рет қаралды 19 МЛН