Justice Scalia On The Record

60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl Interviews The Supreme Court Justice About His Public And Private Life

(CBS)  He's one of the best writers on the panel, known for a bold and colorful style. He told Stahl he has to work at it - that it doesn't come easy.

He some times quotes Cole Porter, and references Greek tragedies. Scalia says he does it because, "It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it."

But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision "sheer applesauce."

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

"How about, 'This opinion is not to be taken seriously.' He wrote that about Justice O'Connor," Ginsburg points out. "He's rather mild I think in the adjectives that he uses for me. But you can take every one of those words, run his opinions and you'll see that he, all of us are implausible when we disagree with him."

Asked if she ever takes it personally, Ginsburg says, "No, I take it as a challenge. How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real put down?"

"I’m trying to figure out if there was ever real anger," Stahl says.

"I would say exasperation is the word," Ginsburg replies.

"As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say 'I'm glad that he’s my friend' or he's my colleague,'" she adds.

"What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun," Stahl tells Scalia.

"I can be charming and combative at the same time," Scalia replies. "What’s contradictory between the two? I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may well be that I'm something of a contrarian."

Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v. Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the 2000 election to George Bush. The subject came up at the Oxford Union.

"Supposing yourself as a Supreme Court justice were granted the power to appoint the next president of the United States. Who would you pick and why? And would he or she be better than your last choice?" a student asked Scalia.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," he replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don’t wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

[Sparticle1]

Oh, and the 5th amendment prohibition against double jeopardy "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb" doesn't apply if you can be cloned, or does apply but only if you don't have at least two more clones.

[Sparticle1]

"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"

So....if "freedom of speech, or of the press" meant "movable type printing presses" and "human-powered voice amplification" to the ratifiers, then freedom of speech does not apply to electronic broadcast, newspapers produced through electronic printing press methods, emails, websites, amplified megaphones --- in fact there is no speech under original intent for anything involving electricity or any other technology not present in 1789?
Therefore, the 2d Amendment applies only to knives, axes, flintlocks and cannon, the 4th amendment does not apply to motorized vehicles or airplanes, so where does Scalia get off "making law"? Answer: he is a fraud on this point, and only uses that obvious baloney to reach results he "feels" are right.

[traderlaurel]

"Get over it."
It''s not acceptable to fold your arms, and refuse to elaborate on the argument at his level with his power in his position. He knows his faulty argumentation will be revealed through this pre-Socratic questioning and his arrogant posturing is part a defensive stance is an attempt to close-off and reduce the argumentation of the opposition. I''d like to know where the "factoid" was found that no matter, what, the election would have turned out the same. ???

Having said that, this show isn''t going to explore any deep understanding of the arguments. On either side.

I believe in some of the things he believes in and I don''t believe in some of the things he believes in, but I''m not a Supreme Court Justice with many years of law scholarship. We deserve more than these types of answers though, and I''ll check out his book--hopefully, they''ll be more there to digest than this cartoon.

"That''s my view and it happens to be correct."

[mathy6-2009]

Justice Scalia has no idea how torture can be seen as punishment. He may be very intelligent, but he has failed to make the following basic connection. What is a torture victim being punished for, he asks? Why didn''t Leslie Stahl say "for not talking"..."for not confessing"..."for not naming names". Clearly torture is punishment for withholding information.
It''s not that big of a mental leap. Torture is inflicted in order to get information. Presumably once the information is given, punishment (a.k.a. torture) will cease. That it does not, adds to the fact that it is indeed cruel and unusual.

[oyinbo55]

The Scalia hypothesis is that his "originalist" philosophy explained his various opinions, such as support of torture, etc. On the face of it, it seems to be quite a contradiction to say that the most radical freedom fighters of their generation, after doing battle with the tyrant George III of England , would support blatant tyranny in the form of torture today. When asked if torture violated the Constitution''s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, he simply smiled and said that questioning a prisoner is not punishment. Huh? By that Supreme Court reasoning, the government could poison its prisoners, because feeding prisoners is not punishment. It is in the context of the struggle against tyranny that we can understand the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." The colonists were well aware that citizens of England enjoyed civil liberties under the Magna Charta. When the American colonists called a punishment "unusual", they meant exactly that - it deviated from the usual practice in England. To say that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to torture is just the very beginning of what that phrase would have meant. The warrantless search of their homes and seizure of their property by His Majesty''s soldiers was unusual, and violated the revered principle of presumption of innocence. These were the unusual punishments that the Founding Fathers set out to lift from the shoulders of the free American people.

[oyinbo55]

The Scalia hypothesis is that his "originalist" philosophy explained his various opinions, such as support of torture, etc. On the face of it, it seems to be quite a contradiction to say that the most radical freedom fighters of their generation, after doing battle with the tyrant George III of England , would support blatant tyranny in the form of torture today. When asked if torture violated the Constitution''s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, he simply smiled and said that questioning a prisoner is not punishment. Huh? By that Supreme Court reasoning, the government could poison its prisoners, because feeding prisoners is not punishment. It is in the context of the struggle against tyranny that we can understand the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." The colonists were well aware that citizens of England enjoyed civil liberties under the Magna Charta. When the American colonists called a punishment "unusual", they meant exactly that - it deviated from the usual practice in England. To say that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to torture is just the very beginning of what that phrase would have meant. The warrantless search of their homes and seizure of their property by His Majesty''s soldiers was unusual, and violated the revered principle of presumption of innocence. These were the unusual punishments that the Founding Fathers set out to lift from the shoulders of the free American people.

[oyinbo55]

The Scalia hypothesis is that his "originalist" philosophy explained his various opinions, such as support of torture, etc. On the face of it, it seems to be quite a contradiction to say that the most radical freedom fighters of their generation, after doing battle with the tyrant George III of England , would support blatant tyranny in the form of torture today. When asked if torture violated the Constitution''s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, he simply smiled and said that questioning a prisoner is not punishment. Huh? By that Supreme Court reasoning, the government could poison its prisoners, because feeding prisoners is not punishment. It is in the context of the struggle against tyranny that we can understand the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." The colonists were well aware that citizens of England enjoyed civil liberties under the Magna Charta. When the American colonists called a punishment "unusual", they meant exactly that - it deviated from the usual practice in England. To say that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to torture is just the very beginning of what that phrase would have meant. The warrantless search of their homes and seizure of their property by His Majesty''s soldiers was unusual, and violated the revered principle of presumption of innocence. These were the unusual punishments that the Founding Fathers set out to lift from the shoulders of the free American people.

[cutthebull]

The Supreme Court decision in 2000 was completely political and is black mark on the history of this country. Why: Because every county in this country uses it''s own method of voting, so to use this as an argument to stop the count is ridiculous. Like Bill Clinton said, if Gore had been ahead in the count, the Court would have ruled 9-0 to continue the recount. I think he would know.

[iambwf]

It is disappointing to see some lingering over the 2000 election. I have to wonder if they actually understand the law. Under what legal basis was a selective recount warranted? It showed Stahl''s ignorance that she wanted to make a legal decision political based on the outcome of the case.

Scalia is pompous. So what? How does that discredit the logic of his position?

[missingamerica]

You should read Scalia''s dissent on the Guantanamo rouling and tell me how the statement "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." fits into the notion that the Constitution has a fixed interpretation.

Scalia is a pompous @ss

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 10:44 AM : Sep 15, 2008

That is easy...the right no longer requires that what they want meet any Constitional criteria.

All of the right is like that, now - the Constitution is a tool for their use; when it becomes an impediment to what they want, it instantaneously becomes "just a go44@mned piece of paper".

[abarkow-2009]

stahl was a giggly sychophant in the face of the queens wise-guy. the bush 2000 selection is not something we should get over already. for example. dig on that.

[abarkow-2009]

lesley stahl was a giggly softball thrower who did not seriously question scalia''s non-sequitur responses to important issues. his remark on the bush 2000 selection is not to be forgotten, or gotten over, as the r

[jayfl11]

Our country was founded partly because the people did not want taxation without representation and to get away from the tyranny of an unelected king. Do you really think they would set up the Constitution so unelected Justices could enact laws, spending, etc. on their own whim,politics or worse. The living part of the Constitution is Amendment. I''m a moderate Democrat and never wished for activism in the Supreme Court. Unchecked it would be the downfall of our democracy.

[trcooper3]

Justice Scalia,
We love you. You are one of the few judges who understands that "cruel & unusual punishment" also pertains to family members of innocent murder victims who must suffer trhough a system that tolerates & encourages murder. You also understand the meaning of the word "standard" as a fixed entity that does not waiver in the changing wind of human whims, viewpoints, attitudes, morals, or religious belief.

[trcooper3]

Justice Scalia,
We love you. You are one of the few judges who understands that cruel & unusual punishment also pertains to the family members of innocent murder victims who must suffer through & witness a permissive system that tolerates & encourages murder.
You are one of the few who understands the meaning of the word "standard" as a fixed entity that does not blow in the wind of changing whims, viewpoints, attitudes & morals.

[protek25-2009]

I''m not sure whether or not you''ve edited out some of the conversation, but I''m very surprised by the failure of Scalia to remind Ms. Stahl that there is already a way provided in the constitution itself for the change that she claims that is expected by the "people". It is called AMENDMENT!!. The framers wisely knew that if it were as easy as convincing 9 people to establish laws, and practices anew to the constitution, there would soon be NO standards at all. Imagine, if you will, a supreme court on which 9 Scalias were seated, and what ever they chose to opine on became law...The constitution needs to be VERY hard to change, and needs to be a matter of consent of the VERY Large majority. Otherwise, we will soon be ruled by oligarchy, and no one will be served but them.

[protek25-2009]

I''m not sure whether or not you''ve edited out some of the conversation, but I''m very surprised by the failure of Scalia to remind Ms. Stahl that there is already a way provided in the constitution itself for the change that she claims that is expected by the "people". It is called AMENDMENT!!. The framers wisely knew that if it were as easy as convincing 9 people to establish laws, and practices anew to the constitution, there would soon be NO standards at all. Imagine, if you will, a supreme court on which 9 Scalias were seated, and what ever they chose to opine on became law...The constitution needs to be VERY hard to change, and needs to be a matter of consent of the VERY Large majority. Otherwise, we will soon be ruled by oligarchy, and no one will be served but them.

[protek25-2009]

I''m not sure whether or not you''ve edited out some of the conversation, but I''m very surprised by the failure of Scalia to remind Ms. Stahl that there is already a way provided in the constitution itself for the change that she claims that is expected by the "people". It is called AMENDMENT!!. The framers wisely knew that if it were as easy as convincing 9 people to establish laws, and practices anew to the constitution, there would soon be NO standards at all. Imagine, if you will, a supreme court on which 9 Scalias were seated, and what ever they chose to opine on became law...The constitution needs to be VERY hard to change, and needs to be a matter of consent of the VERY Large majority. Otherwise, we will soon be ruled by oligarchy, and no one will be served but them.

[protek25-2009]

I''m not sure whether or not you''ve edited out some of the conversation, but I''m very surprised by the failure of Scalia to remind Ms. Stahl that there is already a way provided in the constitution itself for the change that she claims that is expected by the "people". It is called AMENDMENT!!. The framers wisely knew that if it were as easy as convincing 9 people to establish laws, and practices anew to the constitution, there would soon be NO standards at all. Imagine, if you will, a supreme court on which 9 Scalias were seated, and what ever they chose to opine on became law...The constitution needs to be VERY hard to change, and needs to be a matter of consent of the VERY Large majority. Otherwise, we will soon be ruled by oligarchy, and no one will be served but them.

[charley1m]

Lesley does not understand that ''a living constitution'' means no constitution, only a nation where our constitution is nothing more than the opinion of 5 unelected lawyers at any given time. Jefferson saw this as a recipe for tyranny, and he was right. It takes more courage and principles to push away power as a conservative like scalia than for incompetent judges like ginsberg or breyer..it is scalia, thomas, alito and roberts who maybe the only true vanguards of our Constitution, and our freedoms.....charley