Justice Scalia On The Record
60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl Interviews The Supreme Court Justice About His Public And Private Life
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Justice Scalia On Life Part 1
The U.S. Supreme Court?s Antonin Scalia discusses his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with Lesley Stahl.
-
Video
Justice Scalia On Life Part 2
The U.S. Supreme Court?s Antonin Scalia discusses his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with Lesley Stahl.
-
-
Photo
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (CBS)
-
Photo
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl. (CBS)
-
-
Interactive
The Supreme Court
History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
-
Photo Essay
Class of 2006
Justices of the Supreme Court pose for pictures
by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner

Not many Supreme Court justices become famous, but Antonin Scalia is one of the few. Known as "Nino" to his friends and colleagues, he is one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation.
He first agreed to talk to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl last spring about a new book he's written on how lawyers should address the court. But over the course of several conversations, our story grew into a full-fledged profile - his first major television interview - including discussions about abortion and Bush v. Gore.
At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.
Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values.
Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."
"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.
"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.
"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.
"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.
"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.
"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.
He's been on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.
For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.
"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.
They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.
"I’m surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He’s evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He’s going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.
"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.
Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can…I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use… A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."
Produced by Ruth Streeter
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 28
- next
See all 1394 CommentsSays it all.
Dear Judge Scalia: Maybe we could get over it easier if your boy hadn''t led us into two wars and a recession.
Scalia has always been an ultra right-ringed zealot, whose interpretation of the law only suits his own political agenda.
Why do morons like yourself post IN ALL CAPS? I think you need to compliment your remedial history classes with some basic grammar skills.
"On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were%u2026trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion." "And you%u2019re against that?" asks Stahl. "Of course. There%u2019s nothing [in the Constitution to support that view]."
LIBS just won''t believe anyone who disagrees with them, often with disrespectful venom.
By your flawed, simple-minded logic, Saddam Hussein should have never been prosecuted, because his crimes occurred in the past. Whether or not Scalia makes politically motivated decisions in his capacity on the SCOTUS is a pretty contemporary issue, which anyone should be able to raise at any time, since it effects us all.
Why do you hate America?
spoken like a true partisan ... almost at the same time he says it wasn''t political.
does he think he''s fooling anyone?
The omissions and errors in fact just from the short quotes listed are noting sort of astounding, but not anything less than what I''ve come to expect from conservatives over the years.
Just one example: "It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question%u2026". No, actually, the title of the article says it itself "Bush v. Gore" - the plaintiff was BUSH, not Gore. BUSH brought the action before the Court, not Gore, and the Court agreed to hear it.
Blaming Gore for the decision Scalia himself reached is rank dishonesty and childish derision of the "nah nah nah" variety.
Scalia should be removed from the Court.
Posted by mbcsmith
Good point.
You''re an idiot.
The consitution declares that each state is responsible for the maner in which it conducts elections and collects votes. Florida used the same paper ballots for decades. If the people in Florida don''t understand the significance of their own voting process, then they are the ones at fault. Gore made an issue because he could not stand the fact that the democrates in florida coult not conduct an election without *** it up. Need proof, just look at the current democratic primary. And you want the whitehouse, yea right.
[Posted by marbru at 01:21 PM : Apr 24, 2008]
it''s not spilt milk ... it''s the deciding of the presidential election on a vote margin of 534 votes ... in a state where 6,000,000 people voted.
do the math ... it''s well within margin of error ... and therefore the result is invalid.
has anything been done in seven years to deal w/ this if it happens again?
just like you said ... any amount of complaining won''t change anything ... like deciding presidential elections on 0.001% margins ... cause all those that could change it really don''t want to.
If another president is installed, bought and paid for it is time for viva la revolution. The common ppl''''s wish was not heard during the 2000 election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by fedupwithit1 at 01:32 PM : Apr 24, 2008
Bush won more popular vote than any president in history.
[Posted by vet999999 at 01:33 PM : Apr 24, 2008]
then why is the ussc deciding on the way they chose to count the votes?
"People keep saying: ''Man, that happened a long time ago. Just let it go.''
''Ok. Then don''t bring up Jesus to me!''
''You know, Jesus Died for you, Bill.''
''Yeah, it was a long time ago! Forget about it!''"
C''mon guys, get over it. Its just the takeover of democracy by a totalitarian government, let it go! Quit being whiney liberals, Gawd!
Blaming Gore for the decision Scalia himself reached is rank dishonesty and childish derision of the "nah nah nah" variety.
Scalia should be removed from the Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jumkey at 01:28 PM : Apr 24, 2008
Gore sued in the state of Florida. When the LIB Florida supreme court came up with a PARTIAL recount scheme in select counties, NOT the entire state, Bush THEN took it to the Supreme court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by mbcsmith at 01:37 PM : Apr 24, 2008
Obviously he didn''t, since they had to send it to the Supreme Court in the first place! Get real!
Too bad he had less popular vote than his opponent. Your post was typical smoke-and-mirrors Republican spin.
The majority of voters said Gore. The Supreme Court said Bush.
That''s not Representative Democracy. That''s not what the Founding Fathers designed.
Neocons: wrapped in the flag, waving a bible, spitting on the Constitution.
Posted by mbcsmith at 01:37 PM : Apr 24, 2008
I''ve suspected for weeks that you were delusional. This is the proof.
From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
2000 Totals
Gore 50,999,897
Bush 50,456,002
Nader 2,882,955
Go peddle your lies somewhere else.
Posted by bobnjersey
--------------
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators
-----
The suprememe court did not decide how the votes were to be counted. They just determined the vote and count as conducted was legal.
The consitution declares that each state is responsible for the maner in which it conducts elections and collects votes. Florida used the same paper ballots for decades. If the people in Florida don''''t understand the significance of their own voting process, then they are the ones at fault. Gore made an issue because he could not stand the fact that the democrates in florida coult not conduct an election without *** it up. Need proof, just look at the current democratic primary. And you want the whitehouse, yea right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by vet999999 at 01:33 PM : Apr 24, 2008
Oh, we get it alright, its just that we don''t have a Karl Rove playbook (we haven''t perfected being legal crooks, yet, but its becoming a work in progress), a brother of our candidate of choice who just happens to be governor of the state in question, a Kathleen Harris who was head of the Voting Commission and after-the-fact deal making republican with the Bush Administration, properly registered legitimate voters being removed from the books/records and labeled as felons, and a republican conservative supreme court, on our side.
But hey, of course, all things being truly equal in a perfect and just world, these things are all just coincidental...right!
2000 Totals
Gore 50,999,897
Bush 50,456,002
Nader 2,882,955
Go peddle your lies somewhere else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by creeper00 at 01:43 PM : Apr 24, 2008
Look at the 2004 totals. Bush won more popular votes than any president in history.
Posted by mbcsmith at 01:37 PM : Apr 24, 2008
_______________________________________
I would like to see some proof of that as I was alway under the impression that Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
You just don''t ''get over'' the worst administration in history. You do as the Democrats have always done - clean up the huge mess once the Repugs have faded into their ill-earned retirements...
If it wasn''t a poltical decision then why would the Supreme Court write a decision that they explicitly stated should *not* be considered precedent and only apply in this single instance. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to *define precedent* not make one-off decisions that satisfy their political whims.
As a matter of fact as a religious person I think the reason the reason 9/11 happened, all the natural disasters, and the beginning of this current economic disaster is God repaying us for overturning the will of the people.
Regardless, at least Al Gore still got 540,000 more votes than GW in 2000!
Scalia is 100% full of crud. Always has been and always will be. He should go hunting with Richard Cheney more often and just give Thomas two votes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ByeNeocons at 01:48 PM : Apr 24, 2008
He did. In the state of Florida, which started the whole mess.
Idiots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by roboko at 01:46 PM : Apr 24, 2008
The Supreme Court votes was 7 to 2...yes, but Gore had the popular vote, and they quashed it like a bug!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by broncfan1661 at 01:49 PM : Apr 24, 2008
I refer you to the 2004 election totals. Bush won more popular votes than any president in history.
-Posted by broncfan1661 at 01:49 PM : Apr 24, 2008
Read carefully - Bush won more popular votes than any PRESIDENT in history, not any CANDIDATE.
What was left out of that was: By a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature. Guess who those 5 were?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 28
- next
See all 1394 Comments