Because Scalia usually says something profound when he speaks.

Relax, he was old and died. People do that, ya know. He was just a very smart, influential individual that was old and died.

Griffin Dean Shut up u fool He died before his time He was murdered!!! But what an intelligent individual!!

Kingsley Pearce: Morgan is a dullard.

Bruce Wayne, He sure isn't lolz

Whats your favorite color? Whats your dogs name? Why are you?

Agreed

Nobody gives a fuck about him. He did exactly what he was supposed to do

P Morgan did not want him but agreed because it was the only way Scalia would do the segment. The interview was 1.5 hours long and they edited out the parts that made Morgan look like even more foolish and most of the parts Garner was speaking. Garner is actually a very interesting and intelligent man. He is the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary 11th edition.

Man that's such an awesome opportunity. I'd have paid a fortune for 15 minutes with the guy. I admire you for being able to respect him & his positions even if you disagree.

Hi Matt, even though we would likely differ on our legal interpretive philosophies , I take my hat off to you for seeing through your disagreements with The Justices' opinions, and understanding him. If only everyone would be as mature and thoughtful as you Matt, society would be much better. I don't know you, but I respect you greatly for what you have written. I know the Justice spent alot of his time helping people understand his textualist and originalist jurisprudence. I think maybe you may not be aware that he took even more care to spend time with you precisely because he may have senses you don't agree with him, which would have given him even more reason to win yo over by showing that he never made decisions because of what we wanted other than to be true to the text, to ensure that he left the freedom to the people and the democratic process to govern, and not him unless it is clear in the text of the statute or the constitution that the 'people' ratified. He believed we progress democratically, and not by robed unelected jurists. This quote from Thomas Sowell reminds me of The Justice "the most important question is not what's best or what's right, but who decides', and Justice Scalia lived that philosophy, he was not King, the Law is.

Al Gore brought the case to the Florida Supreme Court, and The US Supreme Court agreed to hear it. As Scalia say's it was just a matter of Jurisdiction, if it was the election of the Florida Governorship then sure Florida should decide it. But it was the US election, so which court should decide the matter if it is brought into the courts? Florida or US? ...US election so US Supreme Court. Easy!

Do you realize that you are twisting Scalia's words?

You don't like The Constitution being read the way it was originally intended?

martthesling Who does? Unless you're a wealthy white male, why would you want to live by the precepts set down by a group of wealthy white men? It would seem that they would be biased from their onset, and they were. These bill of rights were never intended to include anyone else. Women couldn't even vote when they were written! Blacks were considered property! The notion of treating gay people as a class of citizens worthy of ANY rights was laughable!!! There's a reason why most justices (including Scalia) abide by the notion of stare decisis. There's a reason why the Constitution has been amended. And there is NO REASON in going back to step one & retreading a path that has brought us to a place, today, with not perfect civil rights, but civil rights that are more focused, more inclusive, more conscientious than just about any other time in our history. Looking at the Constitution without placing it in the context of what has followed it is like judging a classic piece of literature based on nothing but the first sentence. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." Thank You Mr. Dickens! I think I've got the gist of it!

HoRu Re: "Women couldn't even vote when they were written! Blacks were considered property! " What a bad faith argument against originalism. Originalism acknowledges the amendments that were passed via Article V. Slavery was banned by Amendment 13 for example. An orginalist is more likely to enforce the 13th Amendment than someone who believes in a "living Constitution" who may decide the 13th Amendment is out dated in 100 years.

Mark Stuber Let’s remember, when dealing with the Constitution & its Amendments, we are speaking of, essentially, a very brief document. It is not a comprehensive compendium of our rights and an Originalist interpretation is just as liable to give one a different answer each morning its read anew. You: “An orginalist is more likely to enforce the 13th Amendment than someone who believes in a "living Constitution" who may decide the 13th Amendment is out dated in 100 years.” Really? Because it was, in part, from an Originalist perspective that Justice Brown, who wrote Plessy vs Fergusson came to his momentously disastrous opinion. For example, contrary to its epithet of the Separate But Equal opinion, a basis for the majority opinion in Plessy vs Fergusson was that of state’s rights, frequently a popular argument from the Originalists on the modern Court. “Laws permitting, and even requiring their (blacks & whites, of course) separation... has been generally... recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures.” Justice Henry Billings Brown, Plessy vs Ferguson. So a simple states rights argument is all that’s needed to lay waste to the efforts of millions of people. Orginalism does NOT guarantee a good opinion (as Justice Scalia, himself, has admitted), and it does not guarantee a consistent opinion. To reiterate: “There's a reason why most justices (including Scalia) abide by the notion of stare decisis. There's a reason why the Constitution has been amended."

HoRu The Plessy Vs Fergusson decision had nothing to do with the 13th Amendment! And no, "Separate but equal" doesn't sound orginalist at all. It sounds like the name of a doctrine a judge made up to get his way. I'm not sure, if one could apply oringalist methodology to that case anyway. I'm not sure “equel protection of the laws” was a comon phrase in the 1860s/70s or not. As Scalia pointed out. Originalism can't always be used but when we know how a phrase was comonly used at the time and how everyone who ratified the verbiage interpretedd, that's what we should go by. I'not not sure If you even listened to Scalia. Re: “ was that of state’s rights, frequently a popular argument from the Originalists on the modern Court” Nope, Originalism is not about state rights. Nice straw man. It is about states rights only when the Costitution designates states as the arbirture of the subject at hand. By the way, saying a decsision has disaterous consequences has no bearing on whether a law is or is not Constitutional. Not to any kind of textualist including Originalists. If part of the Consititution is bad, propose a Constitutional Amendment to fix it. Don't have 9 judges pretend the Constitution says something it does not say.

Fathers are being completely left out of this equation and if that is the case, the court needs to rule women have the sole responsibility for the children, especially financially, and men have no further obligation at any time.

Are you suggesting that the father should have the right to override a woman's decision about her own body? A father may decide no to have a child with a woman. After he decides to go ahead and do the hanky panky, he will have the opportunity to help his woman bring the child into the world, and when she does, he has equal responsibility with the mother. Simple, no?

All human rights are created by democratic process. Unless you believe judges should take into consideration natural rights, which would be unworkable and lead to arbitrariness. It can be your opinion that the rule from Roe v. Wade should be codified as a constitutional amendment, and I might even agree with you, but if you want judges to just create this right out of thin air you are against democracy.

Christian Schumacher All human rights are in fact natural and come from your creator or humanity. (We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.... That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed) Governments, laws and constitutions give no rights, the rights mentioned in the constitution were rights that existed due to your state of nature (basic Lockeian philosophy) the codifying of these rights predates the constitution as well, manga carta was the first example of it being codified. This is why the amendments that mention rights always use the phrasing of 'the' right, acknowledging that the right is preexisting and not a result of the constitution. Most western common law is derived from natural law and natural rights. Justice Clarence Thomas cites much common law in his opinions. The 9th ammendment is an acknowledgement that the constitution couldn't possibly mention all rights and therefore 'the enumeration of in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people' There is much precedent in historical and current jurisprudence regarding natural law.

John Galt What is your point? Laws can acknowlegdge natural law, but that doesn't go against anything I said. Common law isn't natural law either, as you know. When Justices cite common law they use it to explain what is meant with what is said in the constitution, since the constitution sometimes refers to apparently pre-existing rights which need to be explained. Since English common law was the legal source before the constitution, obviously that's where they'd look. Justices don't argue on the basis of natural law in and of itself, because that's not a legal source. If it were, justices could make up their own natural rights. What is self-evident to you might not be self-evident to me.

Original meaning, not intent.

Why wouldn't he be serious?

Maybe read his book. It's tough to get in depth on every thing you just listed in a half hour.

What actions? Whats the problem?

Wow, You are so wrong about Scalia

+Live Oak Antonin Scalia was a million times smart than obama.

+huskerfaninNJ Obviously ..

Live Oak lmao 🤣 this judge is the most originalist judge there is and now Trump gets to put a second judge on the Supreme Court lol 😝 to bad

What were you scared of?

+Martin Pescador What exactly is your beef with him? Just wondering.

+Gianni Jaffa Liberals thinks Supreme courts make laws. =))

+Gianni Jaffa Scalia didn't make law...so your beef is with CONGRESS

his beef is with the constitution, if you don't like it move in with mr. Morgan

+Martin Pescador Looks like you don't understand how much of anything works.