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

"You’ve apparently had some down times in your tenure on the court so far. And I’m pointing to the term of 1995-96 when you wrote to former Justice Blackmun at the time, and here's what you said: 'I am more discouraged than I have been at the end of any of my previous nine terms.' You also wrote that you were beginning to repeat yourself, and you did not see much 'use in it anymore,'" Stahl remarks.
"Gee, I hadn’t remembered that I’d written it," Scalia says.
"It says, 'I am beginning to repeat myself,'" Stahl says.
"That's true. That is something that gives me some concern. I mean after a while, you know, I’m saying the same things in today’s dissent that I said in a dissent 20 years ago," Scalia explains.
"Around that same time you wrote, 'The court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I don't recognize,'" Stahl says.
"Yeah. That's how I felt," Scalia says.
"Past?" Stahl asks.
"It’s been less dire in more recent years," Scalia replies.
"In other words, you’ve had down times," Stahl asks.
"Yeah, I think so. I’m happier sometimes than at other times. And the end of a term, I don’t care what term it is, it’s usually a disappointment," Scalia says.
That's because - until recently - he was often on the losing side in cases he cared about most. Over the last several years Scalia has reached outside the court, speaking out publicly about his philosophy, in hopes of influencing the next generation. It’s a role he relishes.
"Little kids come to the court, they’re brought by their teachers. And they recite very proudly what they’ve been taught. I mean, this is how widespread the no-'The Constitution is a living document.' And I have to tell them 'It’s a dead document,'" Scalia told the students at the Oxford Union.
He says the speeches energize him, but at 72, Stahl wondered if he ever thinks about retiring.
"When I first came on the court I thought I would for sure get off as soon as I could which would have been when I turned 65. Because you know, justices retire at full salary. So there's no reason not to leave and go off and do something else. So you know, essentially I've been working for free, which probably means I'm too stupid to be on the Supreme Court," Scalia says, laughing. "You should get somebody with more sense. But I cannot - what happened is, simply I cannot think of what I would do for an encore. I can't think of any other job that I would find as interesting and as satisfying."
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