Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

His logic doesn’t need to be argued, just spoken.

All the gullible whiners loved that pos

"Close your eyes and try to imagine substantive due process. It's the opposite of procedural substance if that will help." He was absolutely hilarious.

What are you talking about? This mfer ruined America with his fat right politics.

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

@@daveponder2754 Well he seems on point about thr American public. You guys elected Donald Trump after all 😂😂😂

@@daveponder2754 Secret Hearings? He has clearly stated that he has nothing against complete audio recordings and transcripts. Everything they have said is available to people like you that want to follow the boring aspects. He just believes that images would be used to package together misinformation and propaganda. He believes that video would change the way attorneys and judges would interact, leading to grandstanding while they compete for "TV time". To hate on this guy for something like his stance on video recording, and then project that onto his other opinions is goofy. You're goofy.

There is nothing "wise" about "secret hearings

I am a jurist; not of the Americas, but of the anglosphere. I dont agree with many of his Honour's opinions. But I'd be pleased to have him among my best; on account of him being the best.

Completely ignorant statement. U base that off what? The blind worship of a super elitist who was appointed by the most elite person… When you know absolutely nothing about this human being

In other words, it sounds to me that he thinks that the due process is not being thoroughly followed in current judiciary and many are excercising pretty lousy actions!

@@gs8099 My take is that the 5th and 14th Amendments preventing the government from depriving us of "life, liberty or property without due process of law" is not much of a protection, if the process we have in place is not itself protective. I guess the joke being that in hell the "process" probably consists of constantly being poked in the butt with an officially-approved pitchfork, while eternally standing up to your knees in the officially-approved hot lava.

The United States would be a better country if Antonin Scalia only wrote Beer Commercials. The US needs Judges who care about Human Rights more than Corporate Rights and who are honest that 2/3 of US States must Ratify New Amendments or Ratify their Repeal.

@@arcanondrum6543 Could you explain your comment about constitutional amendments more? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Like him or hate him, surely Scalia had no confusion about the amendment process.

@@Fuzzybeanerizer Scalia pretended that he was a "guardian of the 2nd Amendment" when in fact, that was a distraction. Lessons can be learned from the Repeal of Prohibition (Prohibition it is said, was something that John D. Rockefeller wanted and funded so that dual-fuel engines, something Henry Ford was making, would be financially stupid to manufacture. Ford stopped making engines that could run on either gasoline or ethanol (cars that Brazil made for decades because they grow a surplus of sugar, which ALSO can be made into ethanol). Rockefeller then let America Repeal Prohibition and go ahead and distract themselves with alcohol again, his wealth was secure.) The Repeal of ANY Amendment is a long process. 2/3 of the States must Ratify it as the very last of several steps. The 2nd Amendment doesn't need protection from pro-corporate hacks like Scalia. By the way, do watch out for the Koch Brothers. Their Heritage Foundation is the actual organization that is picking the Republican Presidential choices for the Supreme Court and though one of the Koch Brothers is dead now, *the organizations they founded want a NEW, VERY CORPORATE FRIENDLY Constitution for The United States.* Like the Patriot Act, which doesn't say "brown people only" and doesn't say "only non-Citizens", the new Constitution is already written and very little is known about it - like the Patriot Act.

You have very low standards.

@@arcanondrum6543 You have not read the Constitution.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand how the justice system works

@@familyfungi Go get some more catch phrases James, maybe you can just quote Kool-aid commercials from now on.

@@arcanondrum6543 Perhaps you have read it, but more likely not understood it. Definitely have to check the Koolaid catchphrases. You have an esteemed opinion of them. Regardless, the OP is referencing that the Supreme Court does not vote on laws nor enact them, but just considers the constitutionality. Most of the oversteps by government are through the People contracting away their rights. Contract makes the law and if you contract out of the Republic to gain benefits and privileges, then you have the corresponding obligations. And so you don't misunderstand further, you have the right to contract, unlimited. That's protected by the constitution. So, you can't argue constitutionality when you're in a contract. Contract makes the law.

+Masooda Stratigakis Great thinkers, absolutely, Great soul, I'm embarrassed we are from the same part of Italy. He has truly destroyed millions upon millions of lives. We had two geniuses of Italian'Americans in Public Service pass away during the past 13 months pass away. Antonin and Mario Cuomo. Mario used his gift to help million, while Antonin used his gift to destroy millions. I saw him speak in person once and he was so engaging and likable, that I left leaving that maybe I was wrong about him. Later that day I went into my law library and looked up not only his decisions, but cases where he wrote a dissent or for the majority, and within 45 minutes I was able to shake this temporary trance he had put me under by speaking so eloquently, intelligently and charasmatically. That is why he was so dangerous. He had the outward appearance of being intellectually gifted and great likability but when I heard he died, I was glad not bc he was dead, but that his completely screwed up view of the Constitution and how to interpret it would no longer damage the lives of so many.

Michele, do you want judges to enforce laws or change it or make new ones?

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

Back up everything

@@daveponder2754 Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the proceedings, arguments, & every single spoken & written word, not to mention orders & decisions & differeing opinions not available in written/printed form. Is it not possible to find almost ANYTHING written &/or published pro or con to those opinions? NO...you don't need to watch lawyers put on a Hollywood act with hair, makeup,...action to make an impression with YOU being the judge. I think the courts need to be courts. The press gets seats, as does the public. You want transparency? THERE IT IS! Most of what happens is behind the scenes. Justice's legal staffs doing research, the Justice's discussing &/or debating the case(s)....how would you "transparency" those?... & WHY WOULD YOU? One grandstanding politician is more than enough & frankly we're drowning in them.

@@daveponder2754 I can only wonder by your comments, who are you? Or who do you think you are? I know you were not a supreme court justice. Maybe you were an attorney? A judge? Just curious because you seem to know so much. All the rest of us need to listen closely to every super important word you say, right? You called Scalia a bozo. I would call you a person with a narcissistic personality disorder, meaning you think great men are bozos and you know so much more than they do or any one else.

If you think this guy is worth respect or is a genius you don't know much about SCOTUS... I'm sure, if there's a hell, that POS is burning in it.

How to you disagree a law is a law his job is to interpret law not make law that’s for congress

@@cjgazerro622 An interpretation of the constitutionality of a law is just that...an interpretation.

Many judges that worked with him they all voted and said that he was by far the best dissent writer of all time. They said the way he wrote things and put words together and described his thoughts text smart combined with creativeness

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

@@daveponder2754 Thanks for proving his point that some people are just too daft and bestial to understand his work 😃

I think you apprecied somebody for his honesty, knowledge, Ethics, fairness, doing his best to makes people life better, makes a difference in people life that's what I like @ Justice in supreme court certainly that's not Scalia, Alito, Thomas Clarence or their chief Robert they make of Supreme Court smells terrible & the lowest approval ever had...!

​@@daveponder2754w2 zee details ff zee❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😊❤❤😊❤

Only if you don't believe in equal rights for women or racial minorities.

+Tony Boy (Bud) Not true, Justice Scalia squashed that claim "...get your legislature to enact a law...". Of course most today believe in equal rights for all, but it is not for SCOTUS to decide.

ddylla85 So what's the point of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?

Maybe he put it "perfectly", but he was a hypocrite.

Apple Pie how so? he advocated for the things he believed was how the courts should operate. but even in many instaces, he ruled for results that wasn't inline with his ethics.

@YoYO Semite it means first year law student

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

I’m jealous! I’m in Brooklyn Law School. The amount of hate for Scalia is kinda funny to me.

@Edgar Poe How did you know about Scalia's throat?

Tony Boy Take your gutter comments to the lefty blogs. No place for it here.

+davo171 He's not wrong though. Even you can't lie and say it.

Zebra Cake He's got no class, take it to moveon.org or something.

I have no time for individuals who can't EVOLVE with the times.Completely dismissing anything that was written at a particular time could ever be render obsolete.Imagine as human beings if we treat technology this way.Talk about being stuck in time.

flex master False dilemma, boy.

+Robert Bell He is a national treasure, who has been villainized because of his originalist views and religion.

+davo171, he's a self-described originalist, but he his rulings are often quite the opposite of that.

+Mr. Gabe He was a man of honor and respect. RIP Honorable Justice Scalia.

Tamila Shultz yea RIP, rest in piss

***** You lefties have really been triggered. Endless class results.

why? To deny you your rights as a woman? Funny

+Dubious Claims- I can't stand TYT. Cent is an arrogant asshole. Why would you think I am a fan of them?

You got one

Neil Gorsuch.

Tony Boy oh good. tony's here and knows what's in the interest of women better than they do because that's not pretentious or condescending at all.

The best in my 73. His support for original intent, is what got him killed. Obama wanted him gone.

Let’s find out how he really died and why was he at what kind of ranch?????

Ditto, Anthony!

@JOHN DOUGLAS you've got the wrong justice, pumpkin. You're thinking of the late Ruth!

Too bad the Obama regime had him Murdered !!!! Lost of a great Mind for the Constitution !!!!

Enemy?

Understanding takes time. Ginsburg and Scalia were certainly not enemies. There's not a justice on the Court who is anyone's enemy. It's easy to confuse legislation with the practice of law, I suppose, but they're not the same. Scalia was a brilliant jurist.

I’m a progressive too, but what does that have to do with the Supreme Court? If I want change, I do it the right way otherwise it’s regressive.

Good to have a open mind !!!

I admire you immediately, being a conservative who does the same, loved the Breyer/Scalia conversation on here, and , of course, loved Scalia and Ginsberg's true friendship. -Cheers!

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

@@daveponder2754 dude, your copying and pasting of the same comment 🤮🤮🤮

Your boy is a great big bigot ... Glad he's gone along with rbg

@@daveponder2754 He knew exactly what would happen. Look how the left treats all of Trump's appointments. They make them out to be bad people and that is WITHOUT using out of context soundbites

I’ve always wondered what motivates people to put time stamps on long form videos like this. They’re helpful to everyone else but what do you get out of it

@@wc6046 For when I come back to this video, I have a reference to the topics that really interested me.

@@wc6046 Ive always wondered what type of psychosis you have for making a PETULANT comments like that! I wonder what you get out of making INSOLENT comment under an anonymous youtube account.

@@jomacron1106 Everything okay at home, joey?

@@wc6046 skip your meds again? lol!

Scalia wrote an essay called "A Matter of Interpretation". It was published into a book with responses from other legal minds and then his response to them. But you can find just the essay online if you search for that title and "pdf". That's probably the best source you could find. I'm not going to do it justice here, but his concern is that *stare decisis* turns law into a game. The written law becomes secondary as the primary goal for an attorney is finding a prior case that will yield a favorable comparison. And this has the cascading effect of adding new unwritten layers of law as each decision becomes a new precedent.

Antonin Scalia was simply the greatest supreme court justice who ever lived..no person ever truly understood the constitution and law like Justice Scalia.. period

@@mitchelll3879 john marshall

You may have overlooked the verses that begin with and culminate from Romans 7:7 onward, which explicitly assert that the law is both NOT sinful, and that if it were not for the law, what accounts for sin would NOT be knowable, along with an example provided, being that of the coveting of wives. But, in other regards, there are verses therein that I would agree, point to the law in toto not being of much need or use insofar as to its applicability whatsoever, past the shedding of one's mortal coil and regardless of any destination per se thereupon thereafter, but it's still a funny quote and I miss Scalia's wisdom, albeit, we certainly didn't agree on everything whatsoever by any stretch of the imagination, nor would I expect he would be impressed with anyone who claimed to hold exactly and precisely the same opinions as he held.

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

For sure Scalia is more originalists and understands precedence better. Barrett essentially seems to have forgotten the importance of precedence.

@@ethanweeter2732 I do not much care for precedence. Law done properly should not need precedence.

@@jonathandnicholson could you elaborate on this? Doesn’t common law itself as a context for the American system suggest precedence is inextricably linked with interpretation and application of law? Know it’s been a while, but was curious about this comment. Thanks!

@@georgeluke6382 Right, precedent: 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' Sorry if that is patronising, but best we use the same definition. The American legal system is deeply rooted in England and even uses English decisions when no precedent in US Law exists. I am going to use a Biblical example as an abstract example rather than a religious example ('the law is a teacher' kind-of-thing)... Say you are a woman (and, this is important: just a woman, but one woman and no man) in Jerusalem convicted of adultery waiting to be put to death... Then someone hears her cry of anguish and takes that as an appeal which is heard by The Judge who, knowing the facts of the case, announces His judgement 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone' and then says to the woman 'Now, you, leave and sin no more' (I cannot remember the exact words, but that is the ipsissum vox from the Gospel of Luke). Now, was Christ, in Biblical law, right to do that? Without looking at anything else other than according to Deuteronomy 22:22-24? Also, consider: Genesis 1:26, Genesis 4:7, Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:28-31, Exodus 23:1-3 and Deuteronomy 16:18 which can be basically summarised as Genesis 1:1-3. Sorry to be annoying, but what do you mean by 'common law' exactly? The English common law is the law that applies to all. However, some people (post-English Enlightenment) have interpreted this as judge-made law as opposed to king-made law. However, kings sat in judgement as the final (Earthly) court of appeal and for trials of the nobility because, like the judges of Israel in the time of Joshua, the nobility were lords over set areas of land (the earldom of Lancashire was a bit like the land ascribed to the Tribe of Benjamin or whatever - language changes from place to place as we are told in Genesis Eleven) and their purpose was to exercise justice on the as well as general security. This is premised on the idea that the sovereign cannot be put on trial by the people subjected to the sovereign (that being a matter of logic because then the sovereign (ultimate authority) would not be the sovereign. The peasant was judged by the earl, the earl by the king and the king by God. This gets a little more complicated by Canon Law during the reign of King John, but we can leave that to one side and I do not want to get too much into the theology. However, the Anglo-Saxon/Norman/Plantagenet legal system of England is deeply rooted in the Torah and the wider Old Testament (if not the Talmud as well). Alan Dershowitz also quotes the Book of Daniel being the root of the adversarial legal system. The current English legal (Homicide Act 1957) definition is textually the same as the Talmudic definition of murder. Are/Were you a member of the Dershow or Triggernometry Locals groups? Your profile pic looks familiar (or I am confusing you with someone else), but the name seems different.

@@jonathandnicholson Not patronizing at all! Thank you for the clarity in your response. I really appreciate your second paragraph- and would love resources on where to learn more! I'd say to your first, actually, yes, that's the point. Christ was the only right law interpreter at that point, specifically because *both* guilty parties had to be put to death in the Law. The fact that only one was caught in the act, and seemingly, everyone else was guilty of sin with her or sin of a like kind, meant Christ alone was qualified to apply the Law's penalty to her. Since she hadn't been brought in a way consistent with the Law, it was consistent with the Law to let her go- I think most theonomists/reconstructionists who would think through that passage would say the same, but let me know if I'm wrong- Rushdooney, Bahnsen, would be guys to look at there. On the Common Law, you definitely know more than me! I know only a bit- Alfred via the implementation of the Deuteronomic code gives the foundation of the English system, the Magna Carta gives a set of precedents with King John in terms of how lesser magistrates understand their relation to the highest magistrate, and William and Mary cement parliamentary supremacy after the back and forth for years in the supremacy of the English monarch and the powers of Parliament. Any place you'd recommend looking to understand more? I'd have said common law wasn't a book, but a series of decisions by the English people to regard previous precedents and a sense of the rights of Englishmen to be represented by their rulers in the decisions made on their behalf, consistent with articulations like Lex Rex, or the Magdeburg Confession. Given your articulation, would you say Common Law as you understand it is precedent-less? Or, do we agree there? Or, are you saying that depending on which stream of Common Law you swim in to get across the Atlantic to American jurisprudence, there may be no precedent to look to in a given articulation of a law? If the latter, I agree, but, there might be a network of precedents that lay a pathway of permissible principles that could ground a number of applications, or enable the judiciary to simply stand back and let the legislature legislate further, perhaps? In the biblical analogy you used, there were examples of applications of the law for adultery that trended towards merciful dispensations even relative to the law for adultery, even after public condemnation and self-incrimination (David and Bathsheba- I don't interpret that story as David raping Bathsheba, but I do see David as the primary perpetrator of murder, and of using his position as king illicitly to seduce a married woman who didn't cry out in the pallace/town- given that, it seems clear if he and Bathsheba had sinned in that way prior to Uriah's death, apparently YHWH didn't demand the Law be applied with a maximum penalty - which means there was precedent in the Jewish narrative for not applying the Law to a convicted adulterer with the maximum penalty, in addition to the irregularity and bad form in bringing only one perpetrator to public execution; another is Jesus' own birth- the narrative indicates Joseph was a righteous man for wanting to divorce Marry quietly, prior to the revelation he received from the angel, which suggests the biblical authors believed OT Scripture didn't have to be interpreted to mean the death penalty for adulterers period for the ethics of God's people)

You're right, he WAS fat. He also led the Supreme Court's maneuvers to ignore the Recount in Florida (something they had no legal jurisdiction over) and declare, 5 to 4 thate loser George W. Bush was President. Gore won the Recount a few weeks later. Then, Bush picked Supreme Court Judges. Yaa! Fascism is so 'immense' in our lives now.

@@arcanondrum6543 you must have studied law @ Harvard law school in order to so clearly understand the Florida counting debate

Justice Scalia was one of the kind and he will be remembered and missed anytime anywhere.

@@amardizz821 Wow, KZfaq ignored your reply and didn't bother to notify me. ANYONE who admires Scalia is either a corporate fascist or uninformed about Scalia.

@@arcanondrum6543 corporate fascist😂😂😂you don't have the story correct about Al Gore. I voted for him and was one of the voters caught up in the Florida hanging chad chaos. SCOTUS was correct - Gore's lawsuit was a joke. He and his attorneys screwed up and unfortunately we got stuck with a war monster. I also voted for Kerry, got stuck for another 4 years with the war monger. Scalia was one of the best justices in modern history followed by the brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas.

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

We are never to know. Like so many tragic and mysterious things in this country. How many mysterious deaths in the political realm have gone uninvestigated with no autopsy? We have no idea. What always surprises me is that the victims family doesn't say or do anything. No questions, no autopsy, just total acceptance of the explanation given. Do you suppose the families are threatened (promised) with the death of the remainder of their family? Ambassador to Bengazzi. What was that really about? Who's to blame for every death there? Who is really responsible? There is the young man killed in an alley in a bad area of Washington DC Seth Rich. There was a suspicious and strange interpretation of what happened to him. 27 years old . And there are more. Suspicious deaths of men who were going to testify against the Clinton's who suddenly die???? These stories don't even scratch thecl surface of political murders. Scary frightening !

😅😅😮

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. He showed that he feared American Citizens having access to the Court using the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" as an excuse. Americans may be right about their contempt if the day to day activities deserve to be held so. If I call someone, for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but shear ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

Oh, the Alito "Big lie" when it comes to substantive due process and purposely misinterpreting Washington v Glucksberg. To see the correct interpretation, read the opinion in McDonald v Chicago....The person who wrote this opinion knew what he was doing. Oh...that ALSO was Alito!! Alito LIED within Dobbs

Gun owners were afforded approximates twice the range of fundamental due process rights in McDonald as Women were in Dobbs...hmm...wonder why and how that happened?

Alito is either a moron for not being able to get his argument to work otherwise, or is extremely arrogant for not changing his argument after its woes were leaked

@@davezick800 probably because gun rights are fundamental (in that they are codified in the Bill of Rights), and the right to an abortion is not fundamental (not mentioned in the constitution nor is there a history of that right)

@@macgyvernewton1630 I don't even know which comment of mine that you are commenting on lol....there are so many comments to wade through! As regards to "fundamental rights" : Fundamental Due Process rights are "objectively" either "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition" (Washington v Glucksberg). The Alito opinion in Dobbs held that the right to an abortion is the latter but refrained to opine on the former, which punted the "implicit" question onto the States when traditionally this responsibility was a federal protection against government incursion upon our rights. In the case McDonald v Chicago, for example, which occurred in 2010 and which incorporated the second amendment into the States, the same justice who wrote the Dobbs opinion- Alito - held that, according the the above case- Wa v Glucksberg- a fundamental due process right is EITHER "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" OR "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition- a much more relaxed and lenient version )and logically distinct from) the version which he used in Dobbs, which was AND rather than OR...thus Alito gave twice as many rights to guns as to Women

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so good why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that makes it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

YES! Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. He showed that he feared American Citizens having access to the Court using the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" as an excuse. Americans may be right about their contempt if the day to day activities deserve to be held so. If I call someone, for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but shear ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

LMAO! Scalia would've thrown out those ridiculous lawsuits just like all nine of the current justices did.

The enemies of America thank you ❤

Re the original comment: I decent.

+Defense General, Democrat in a name only then.

Defense General - no, you’re black.

Him being smart has nothing to do with him being Republican or you be Democrat. He is simply someone who thinks a lot logically based on something written as constitution and what it meant imho.

Part of the reasoning I think, is that his arguments are logically rigid, and expose inconsistencies in our beliefs. For example, I support pro-choice prior to first trimester, and I'm pro life after first trimester. My view is not in the constitution on abortion. So when a supreme court judge has to make a decision on such a case, neither the judge nor I, can reinterpret the current constitution to mean what I believe about abortion. Because if you allow such things to happen, then that means all reinterpretations of the current constitution are valid, including ones where you can euthanize a new born child if you don't want to keep it. Yes the position sounds absurd, but if you accept the premise of reinterpretation - how do you decide which interpretations are more correct than others? Well now you have to assume some sort of moral system to judge interpretations, and a reasonable person might say 'minimize violations of existing rights', but a postmodernist can use moral relativism to say that there is no such thing as morals - and so you are back again to the logical inconsistency - if all reinterpretation is valid, if all moral codes are valid - how should decisions be made? Who decides which interpretations or morals are more valid than others? So as much as I don't like that my ethical views on things are not in the constitution, I have to accept that no majority or congress has voted to put my views in. I don't see any other way around the logical gaps in my beliefs. If I refuse and say 'to hell with the constitution! this is what pro-life/pro-choice should be!' then I am arguing for the living constitution, which means I take on all the above inconsistencies in my logic and beliefs. Either I am a tyrant that wants to force my own interpretation of the constitution on others, or I accept the rulings on abortion that I disagree with.

Your overexcited utterances reveal ur lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles which Scalia is so far over anyone's head that it's frankly embarrassing..he even admits originalism isn't perfect and no one can predict new phenomena..but u have to allow the constitution to stand for something..or stand for nothing..the constitution is a legal document..it says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say

What rights has the Supreme Court removed via reinterpretation?

He was one of the worst

Clarence Thomas is great also...

@@jonicorbin7647 This must be a joke. No way someone can say CLARENCE THOMAS is a good justice. An embarrassment to replace Thurgwood Marshall

The 20th century certainly. 21st, eh we've gone off the rails a bit

Without public broadcasts, and cameras in the Court people like me who would follow and learn from so-called "boring aspects" of day to day issues cannot do so. It is anti-transparency at it's worst. So if this bozo was so great why did he support secret hearings, and no public access by video/audio to the public? He insulted the intelligence of American Citizens by painting us as ones who aren't "intellectually lofty enough" to learn from even mundane day to day activities of SCOTUS. If I call someone , for example a douche bag in a nice way does that make it ok? Nothing but ARROGANCE couched in a smooth, soft delivery which was obviously contrived.

+TheWayWeSee, not sure how much "knowledge has been lost" since he was on the SCOTUS for almost 30 years. He has written plenty enough opinions to leave his mark.

"How much knowledge has been lost, and continues to be lost with the passage of time?" Add "how much common sense and applied reason" to your question, and the answer is: a freaking lot.

Conservative Orginalist Neil Gorsuch confirmed 54-45 April 2017. Nuff Said :)

4 years later... and your wish is about to come true

@@liamyounger2743 p

You received your reincarnation from Trump His men will be good but ACB will be baby AS may he Rest In Peace. 5 year response. Yea at 50 I need to hear him speak to remember what we’re trying to save with these nuts about to transform America.

@@cjgazerro622 I can't believe that they've killed this kind,nice and brilliant man! :(

I was surprised by this because he doesn't even seem to consider it's a defense of life issue -one of the most cherished human rights in the constitution.

@@nancytrombley1731 He’s looking at it from a legal and legislative standpoint. Not his own moral preference. By suggesting that legislators need to vote to put those laws in place he’s also saying that there’s nothing in the constitution currently to uphold laws such as that without getting them properly legislated.

@@claytonsackett8237 Thank you for the comment. That helps frame Scalias comments.

Well she turned out to be no Scalia by a long shot.What a major let down.I didnt like her to begin with and I was right.Clarence Thomas is the only real Conservative up there with a backbone.I like Trump but none of his SCOTUS picks were any good.Too much Mitch McConnell up in his ear telling him who to pick and Mitch is a weasel.