Piers Morgan Interviews Supreme Court Justice Scalia - Part 1

tonight inside the Supreme Court a rare and exclusive interview with the longest serving justice antonin scalia you have to read the Federalist Papers I don't think anybody in the in the current Congress could good right even one of those numbers colorful and controversial powerful and polarizing Scalia's decisions have changed the nation what you've now got are these super PACs funded by billionaires effectively trying to buy elections and that cannot mean what the founding fathers intended I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech the better tonight Justice Antonin Scalia of faith family the right to choose that was the theory used in Roe vs. Wade it's a theory that is simply a lie a rare glimpse inside the highest court in the land for the issues that divide America undecided by Lucifer Justice Antonin Scalia this is Piers Morgan Tonight good evening it is nothing a Supreme Court justice advisor journalist to come and sit down with them inside the court itself but I'm here today in Washington to interview a longest-serving Justice Antonin Scalia justice has never comment on cases they've just ruled on or a pending that's still that's not a territory to cover everything from his faith and family through the guiding judicial principles his thoughts on campaign finance and politics and is colles it's all on the table tonight my exclusive interview with Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan GaN a co-author of their new book reading law the interpretation of legal texts Justice Scalia welcome Ron welcome to you too the book is very much a template for the way that you conducted your legal life you are a man that believes fundamentally that the law in America should be based rigidly on the letter of the Constitution that's what you believe isn't fundamental yes give or take a little rigidly I would not say but it should be based on the text of the Constitution reasonably interpreted people are criticizing for this say a lot of the Constitution was phrased in a deliberately vague way that they realized when they framed it that in generations to come things may change which may be a different impression on a particular piece of text why are you not prepared to accept that that means you can move with the times to evolve it all right but I do accept that with respect to those vague terms in the Constitution such as equal protection of the laws due process of law cruel and unusual punishments I fully accept that those things have to apply to new phenomena that didn't exist at the time what what I insist upon however is that as to the phenomena that existed there meaning then is the same as their meaning now for example the death penalty some of my colleagues who are not textualist or not originalist at least believe that it's somehow up to the court to decide the whether the death penalty it remains constitutional or not that that's not a question for me it's absolutely clear that whatever cruel and unusual punishments may may mean with regard to future things such as death by injection or the electric chair it's clear that that the death penalty in and of itself is not considered cruel and unusual punishment but more and more Americans come around I think in the death penalty is an anachronistic thing you know fifty years ago even when you began your the longest-serving Supreme Court justice when you began a majority of Americans big majority we've been in favor of the death penalty that is beginning to change and you're seeing it in a lot of the better phrase going out of fashion one of the reasons being the introduction of DNA establishing a large number of people on death row didn't commit their crimes how do you equate that as a man of fairness justice how do you continue to be so Pro something which is so obviously flawed I am NOT Pro people regarded I don't insist that there be a death penalty all I insist upon is that the American people never prescribed the death penalty never adopted a constitution which said the states cannot have the death penalty if you don't like the death penalty find some states of abolishing you're quite wrong that it's a majority it's a small minority of the states that have that have abolished it majority still was still permitted but I'm not pro-death penalty I'm just anti the notion that it is not a matter for Democratic choice that it has been taken away from the Democratic choice of the people by a provision of the Constitution that's simply not true though the American people never ratified a provision which they understood abolished the death penalty when the cruel and unusual punishments Clause was adopted the death penalty was the only penalty for a felony so and all we'd have to do is amend the Constitution I mean it can be amended so it is changeable but it's changeable by a process not by asking the judiciary to make up something that is not there in the text right for example on the cool unusual I wouldn't aside of a death penalty as much as torture I was fascinated by your interview I think it's 260 minutes where you said that in your eyes torture wasn't a cruel and unusual punishment I think is what you said torture wasn't punishment and I thought well hang on this thing when it really can be a punishment cut if you're an innocent person so you in quite an abode be and you've expressed views about this too so you've been picked up off a battlefield and taken the grandson of it but you are genuinely innocent you were nothing to do with anything and you get tortured that becomes a punishment doesn't it no II don't think it becomes a punishment it becomes torture and when we have a laws against torture but I don't think the Constitution addressed torture it addressed punishments which means punishments for crimes what about if you are an innocent person waterboarded I'm not for it but I don't think the Constitution says anything about it it's not the problem though with the originalism no here's not the problem it's a problem what does the Constitution mean by cruel and unusual punishments nobody is in it dancer isn't it down to the Supreme Court to effectively give a more modern interpretation of the spirit of what that means to adapt it to modern times well it's lovely but I think it is why don't you think it is I don't think it is because look the the background principle of all of this is democracy a self-governing people who decide the laws that will be applied to them there are exceptions to that those exceptions are contained in the Constitution mostly in the Bill of Rights and you cannot read those exceptions as as broadly as the current Court desires to read them thereby depriving Americans of legitimate choices that the American people have never decided to take away from them and that's what happens whenever you read punishments to mean torture yeah if you are sentenced to torture for a crime yes that is a cruel punishment but the mere fact that somebody is tortured is unlawful under under our statutes but the Constitution happens not to address it just as it does not address a lot of other horrible things robbery did the book what did you argue most with justice clarity he's one of the world's great argues I feel like we just warming up here they look better he's dumb but he's an intellectual giant and we we had no debates in this book when the first book we had four debates where we had a pro and con in this particular book we had none the biggest issue in the end we almost had a debate about but he he persuaded me we should not to was whether a murderer can inherit can a son for example murder his parents and and move up his inheritance and still take whatever the property is from his parents if the statute doesn't say anything about it and we all feel that that that's wrong and I was at first arguing that there should be an equitable exception and that we absolutely have to prevent a murderer from inheriting what did you say in response to that I said if you're going to be serious about textualism if the statute does not make an exception it does not make an exception and those states that hadn't made an exception amended their statutes that's what happened I think it's your brain when we come back I want to ask you why you think burning the American flag should be allowed even though personally you throw them all in jail my special guest Justice Antonin Scalia and Brian Garnett was caught for his book left the viewers on a cliffhanger why you believe that people who burned the flag in America should be allowed to do so and yet you personally if you had the chance would sing the ball in jail yeah if I were king I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag however we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government I mean that was the main kind of speech that the tyrants would seek to suppress burning the flag is a form of expression speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words it could be semaphore burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea I hate the government the government is unjust whatever if you're not sure then in the end doesn't no one knows the Constitution better than he did doesn't it come down to your personal interpretation of the Constitution if it isn't clear-cut which it clearly isn't you in the end have to make an opinion don't you well I'll forget this person has to be convicted by a jury of 12 people who unanimously have to find that he was inciting to riot so you know it's not all up to me it would be up to me to say that there was not enough evidence for the jury to find that perhaps but ultimately the right of jury trial is is the protection okay don't you think this example of speech and reading speech and a fair reading is including symbolic speech there's a lot of case law about that of course but it's a good example of why we think strict construction is a bad idea a lot of people think Justice Scalia is a strict constructionist when in fact he and I both believe that me well it really means a narrow reading a crab reading of statutory words or of constitutional words and it's a kind of hyper literalism which we oppose we like a fair reading of the statute a fair reading of the words and in this case speech well let me we'll let me take up the issue of speech let's turn to political fundraising which at the moment under your interpretation I believe of the Constitution you should be allowed to raise money for a political party the problem as I many critics say is it that it has no limitation to it so what you've now got are these super PACs funded by billionaires effectively trying to buy elections and I cannot have been what the founding fathers intended Thomas Jefferson didn't sit there constructing something which was going to be abused in that kind of way I do think it's been abused no I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech the better that's what the First Amendment is all about so long as the people know where the speech is coming from but it's not speech when the first is about money the back office you can't separate speech from from from the money that facilitates the speech hanji it's it's it's utterly impossible could you tell newspaper publishers you can only spend so much money in the in the publication of your newspaper would they not say this is abridging my speech newspaper publishers aren't buying elections I mean to the election of a president as you know better than anybody else you served under many other things it is an incredibly important thing we shouldn't be susceptible to the highest bidder newspapers endorse political candidates all the time I mean they're they're almost in the business of doing that yeah and are you going to limit the amount of money they can spend on surely not do you think perhaps they should be oh I certainly think not I think as I think the framers thought that the more speech the better now you you are entitled to know where the speech is coming from you know information as to who contributed what that's something else but whether they whether they can speak is I I think clear in the in the first is there any limit in your eyes to freedom of speech is it what are the limitations into you I'm a textualist and what the provision reads is Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech so they had in mind a particular freedom what what freedom of speech the freedom of speech that was the right of Englishman at that time well there's an assessment speech about insurrection being unacceptable and speeches you're burning a flag isn't that a form of insurrection no there's no no no that's that's that's just saying we dislike the government it's not urging people to take up arms against the government that's something quite different that's what I mean by speech urging insurrection speech inciting to riot or inciting to shouting in a theater in one of the more complex things about justice which i think is has been admired and criticized in equal measure the case I would put to you I think it's interesting where you descended against something where I think common sense would have dictated the opposite with Maryland v Craig a young girl who had been abused by a child molester and she gave evidence through closed-circuit television she didn't appear in court and the abuser argued that this was unconstitutional because under the confrontation and in the Constitution he should have been allowed to be face to face with his victim now what part of human decency or common sense says that he should have the right to be face to face with his young girl victim because you dissented against the Supreme Court you decided he should be allowed to all legal rules do not come out with a perfect sensible answer in every case the confrontation clause in some situations does seem to be unnecessary but there it is and its meaning could not be clearer you are entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against you and simply watching the witness on a closed circuit so when the witness is a young girl is already being whatever views and is actually traumatized by what happened what it says is what it says even if you had you go home at night when you descend again in that particular case do you have misgivings about it person on a personal level or are you always able to divorce that from your as you would say legal responsibility to uphold the lesser of the Constitution no I sleep very well at night that's how good I'm doing what I suppose what I'm supposed to do which is to apply to apply the Constitution I do not always like the result very often I think the result is terrible but that's not my job I'm not cake and I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right all the time yes sir let's take another break let's come back and talk about one of the most contentious Supreme decisions of a roe v wade you had very strong opinions at the time I suspect you have equally strong opinions today and we'll find out you you

Channel: 4cpus4me

Views: 180,431

Rating: 4.7960525 out of 5

Keywords: CNN, Piers Morgan, SCOTUS, SCALIA, Supreme Court, Political, Politics, Democrat, Republican, Obama, White House, Roe vs. Wade, Roe V. Wade (Legal Case), Barack Obama (US President)

Id: it7sN2jqpNs

Length: 14min 45sec (885 seconds)

Published: Mon Mar 04 2013