Is Leonard Leo a *good* man? Would you leave an elderly person, a young woman or a Black American friend of yours alone in a room with him? In what madrassa was he radicalized?
Haha, you keep it real mane. Leonard Leo ain’t no fuck around shit, he one- hunna ☝🏾percent pure catholic old school breed. He strikes as a magical creature in that sweet spot after brown vs board of edu. But before Miranda. The place is good for white men, hell even Catholics are good but not the presidency, 56-60’. ‘Umerica’ be lookin’ like Shia alawite Syria, Sunni Iraq, Aparthied South Africa haha 🤣
I found it interesting the lawyer who was against the opinion came around to say that Scalia was "right about the the way the independent council act would act in practice" The lawyer never seemed to put it together that this wasn't Scalia taking a narrow view, this was Scalia understanding the wisdom that was built into the constitutional process. The lawyer stated that without the process impeachment would become rampant and political. How many impeachments have we had in our history? How many special council investigations have we had? What of the 2 methods has worked and which is used as a political tool?
this wasn't Scalia taking a narrow view, this was Scalia understanding the wisdom that was built into his version of the constitutional process. Like every other Justice, Scalia had his own particular line of reasoning which was not the only way to see things.
@@deltasquared7777 agreed. Which is the fault of going about the situation just to reach a judgment. Scalia wanted a reform of the investigation to be had to where a better way to process things should be implemented but of course when it’s for political gain the people in power just want a verdict so they can seem right and look like heroes and appeal to the masses who don’t know the intricate details to be made for such a process. Of course that is how politics are used in the mainstream media. Leaving out the entirety of the situation and only pointing towards what helps a certain narrative for their political agenda
@@deltasquared7777 There is more than one methodology to interpret the Constitution, but living constitutionalism is inherent unconstitutional. Judges intuiting or inferring things out of the text that don't actually exist in the text is effectively removing will of the governed from the people who elected those legislators that voted whatever amendment or statute into effect. Roe v. Wade for example was the living constitutionalists literally creating a right out of thin air, no amendment process happened to actually create it, then it was imposed on all 50 states with no democratic vote. An even more direct abolition of consent of the governed in that case.
Scalia was a pure constitutionalist. People like the NY Law School guy, and I guess the rest of the court at the time, quite often think in terms of what is good, or bad, for the country. Over time this good or bad feelings lead to failures of judicial prudence and inappropriate power of a branch of government. The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is not to determine what is good or bad for the country, but to determine constitutionality of cases. In that light Justice Scalia was the great Justice of all during his tenure in the court. Everyone should study Scalia's writings to understand the foundation of the country (The Constitution) and how "feeling decisions" have often produced disastrous effects.
That ideology is flawed because we shouldn’t blindly follow the constitution. Even the founding followers left provisions in to amend or change it. A lot of scalia’s decisions came from pure biased interpretations of the constitution ie his dissent in roe v wade, justices had to use their own judgment to decide whether life begins at conception or birth and that the constitution says nothing about abortion, therefore it should be left up to the states... but it SHOULDNT be left up to the states because having the right to your own body should be guaranteed for each individual.
Quite the opposite. It’s not blind obedience to the constitution that is at stake. It’s the overt willingness to misinterpret the constitution to fit your ends that proves why the Supreme Court should defer to the constitution. Justice Scalia was absolutely correct.
@@garbonomics perfectly said! sad how people like @jaylin jamerson see it that way. we are heading to a generation where people are misinterpreting things because of "perception" , "political correctness", feelings etc. losing site to common sense as well.
@@Jaylinjamerson your entire argument is flawed. First, Justice Scalia wasn’t even a member of the Court when Roe v. Wade was decided. Second, it was the majority in that case who literally made up a new “right” within the 14th Amendment - the “right to privacy.” Where do you find any mention of privacy in the Constitution? Nowhere. It doesn’t exist. Any mention in the contemporary writings of the amendment’s authors? Nope. Dozens of states had laws outlawing abortion by the time the 14th Amendment was passed, yet none of them were overturned by the 14th Amendment for more than 100 years because that clearly wasn’t its purpose. How about today? The NSA and CIA secretly collect data on citizens without any regard for “privacy.” Has the Court put a stop to any of that? Hell no! You could make an argument that the 9th Amendment applied to Roe, but it’s complete BS to say that the 14th Amendment gives women a right to murder their children.
@@Jaylinjamerson Ya and there is a process to change it, which is not judicial. For every "good" that the Court has created, I can list you a "bad". Wickard v. Filburn is a good example of how astoundingly stupid a set of judges can be, even within SCOTUS. Imagine being told by the government you can't grow a crop beyond a quota that they set, even if the crop was grown for personal consumption. SCOTUS voted unanimously to do just that.
Scalia was absolutely right on this one: If the President is abusing power, or corrupt, then Congress has the clear authority and framework to remove him or her from office.
Does Congress have the appropriate framework? At first, they have a suspicion, but without investigation of the suspicion, they don't have enough to remove.
@@Achill101 they do but they lack what the law enforcement is suppose to exhibit. too partisan to do the right thing and congress doesnt even know the technicalities of the law.
@@kasimk4 - I would expect many in Congress to understand the law, as there are many lawyers in congress, and some to understand even the technicalities, as they were prosecutors, like Trey Gowdy. But they don't have investigators today and no way to make plea bargains to bring light into a crime complex. And, of course, they are partisan, but so is the leadership of the administration, too.
@@Achill101 true and thats what differentiates them from doj. we expect congress to be partisans and doj not to be. congress cant be trusted because of it and doj should.
Aeneas C. Stamos It’s unfortunate that he was that. If he truly “understood the meaning and function of our (*Constitution)”, he would not have seen it as a stagnated relic, that needed a strict originalist scholarly exegesis, as if it was one of those mythical fabled fairytale doctrines, such as the Bible or the Quran. He would have seen it as living, virtually biological document (that may need to evolve). And he was all to willing to engage in jurist activism & political partisanship when it suited the circumstance. He even once said that he was reluctant to leave the bench because he didn’t want someone to “come along and undo all of my work”. As if he was ordained by some imaginary god or by the spirit of the framers themselves to be the absolute authority. For that, I’m glad he’s dead. And the historical corruption & criminal engagement of Donald Trump has proven his decision to be absolutely DEAD WRONG. Thanks for responding friend, as I wanted the opportunity to expound and elaborate on my dissent and disgust with Justice Scalia.
You cannot truly understand the meaning and function of the Constitution, unless you were there when it was written. It is ignorant for people to go around yapping about how they’re strict constitutionalists. It is ignorant to believe you know the true meaning of this document and ignorant to believe the founding fathers thought the same way about the document as some modern day justice. So no, Scalia just had a conservative view of the Constitution. Doesn’t mean it is right.
I remember when Judge Scalia came to my law school he humbly said that being a Supreme Court Justice did not give him the right to make law and come up with justifications in the Constitution that weren't there. And then some doof in the class, who clearly did not like Scalia's opinions, told Scalia that Scalia was "wise" and therefore DID have that right. Dude was clearly oblivious to the fact that he's saying someone he disagrees with (Scalia) should unilaterally impose laws on all of us. That was the moment when I understood the deep flaw in leftist thinking about the Constitution.
@@Achill101 The doof was a leftist. He only told Scalia he was "wise," in order to make the argument that unelected, lifetime-appointed judges should make rules that govern every facet of our lives. But the doof clearly did not believe in Scalia's "wisdom" - which exposed the fallacy in his argument. Leftists are not concerned with logic. Their opinions and statements are based on emotion.
If you ever argue with a leftist on the merits of the law, the argument quickly changes to what is the right thing to do for society. A value judgement on what is the right thing to do is always a moving target that depends on a person's judgement - it basically means that the law is meaningless.
He was a great man. I love the fact he and Ginsburg were best buddies despite being opposite ends of the spectrum. They were better people than we are today.
@Vincent Cuttolo Interesting footnote of history, President Reagan had both Scalia and Bork in mind for the appointment. He made the "political" decision to appoint Scalia first because he believed with Bork's long ties to D.C. (e.g., Solicitor General,...), he would have no problem appointing Bork on the next go around. It turns out that Senator Kennedy called in every "chit" at his disposal to turn Judge Bork from a proper noun to the verb you mentioned ("Borked"). The then Senior Senator from Massachusetts knew that Bork and Scalia combined on the Supreme Court would change history, and felt compelled to not allow that to happen. The hearings associated with the Judge Bork confirmation process, engineered by Senator Kennedy, obviously, with then Senator Biden's agreement, served to "poison the well." The people of this country are still feeling the effects of that process and that battle,...
Did anyone else feel like this video was an entire hour documentary, and then be pleasantly surprised at the end that it only used 15 minutes of your time. Very nice work Federalist!
Scalia was wrong. We need independent counsels because so many high government officials have been corrupt. What was unconstitutional was the courts interference in Bush v Gore. They learned their lesson and demurred on Trump and Gulianis perversion of our laws.
The “Special Counsel” is a part of the idea of checks and balances. It was put in place to address suspected wrong doings by the executive branch. The idea of checks and balances is written into the Constitution. Congress has no authority to change the Constitution with a statute. That can only be done by an amendment. Call it simplistic, but that’s part of the brilliance of the Constitution, and it addresses separation of powers in just as focused a manner. Scalia was absolutely right and I hope that our SCOTUS will eventually adopt his dissent. We don’t need these circuits acts coming out of the anger of our partisan congress. It’s crippling and does damage. Our recent experience shows us how the same partisan congress can and will abuse this unconstitutional “Special Council” for partisan reasons, and then STILL use their constitutional power of impeachment.
John Bull He went by the United States Constitution and the amendments. He truly a Justice that he knew the forefathers minds and used his knowledge of the Law
@@thomascarlier4930 hey Thomas do you think the Constitution is a living and breathing document that should grow and change with society because it was written couple hundred years ago.
@PracticalTech some laws were made for that time SOME. for and example, you have the right to bear arms. When the Constitution was written did they for see that one man can have a small hand held gun that can kill 50 people in 20 seconds?? And what do they mean by arms does that mean a tank?what I'm saying is that when I say it's a living breathing document that it should be adjusted adjusted for the times. Well I guess it is somewhat like that through amendments.. thanks for responding
@@bryonwatkins1432 I actually break with him there. I do not agree with Kyllo (and I don't agree with Katz either because I do think the 4th Amendment has a connection to physical trespass), I do not agree with his dissent in Maryland v. King, and there are some others I don't agree with either. There are a fair amount of his opinions on this subject I agree with, though, like Jardines because even an entry onto the curtilage represents a physical trespass.
I don’t understand one thing: does Richard Pildes think that the founding fathers, whose entire mission was to upend what they felt was the tyrannies of King George III and the English Parliament, didn’t understand that a president may go rogue and against the will of the people?! That seems like a great leap in logic.
well, i guess you did not watch the clip. the constitution already have provision against rogue presidents. The problem is what do you mean by going rogue'? Is that going against your political beliefs or going against popular opinion.
@@Ekim1740 well that's looking at a glass half full. I think that we can both agree that slaves shouldn't have been counted, in part or in whole, towards representation. It's unfortunate that the founders needed to comprise on this, and I think that's what Sean is going for here.
@@brianhan9483 well the pt is they did not see them as 3/5 of a person like the stupid comment talking about. democrats want to count black slave to increase their representation but at the same time they dont want them to vote. Thats why many democrat initiative like gun control was primarily against black americans owning a gun to defend themselves from people who are lunching them.
For once RUclips recommended something worthwhile. Congress does not need an extra-Constitutional prosecutor to remove the POTUS. They need a simple majority to file articles in the House and 2/3 vote in the Senate. As usual, Scalia was right.
But how do you investigate the issue to determine whether the president should be removed? Based on Scalia you have to impeach the president just to investigate issue during the Senate trial.
@@GizmoMaltese Congress can pass an amendment that allows for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the President who cannot be terminated.
@@GizmoMaltese The founding fathers gave us the articles of impeachment, therefore we DO NOT need additional procedures. By matter of belief alone, does the Congress have authority to impeach a President WITHOUT an investigation so to say otherwise, that an investigation is needed BEFORE impeachment ignores precedent.
@@thestation4768 The reality is impeaching a president without an investigation is impractical. Every president would be impeached. You have to use some level of practicality and common sense when interpreting the constitution. Not being able to investigate issues before impeachment is silly.
@@GizmoMaltese Could it be that our founding fathers believed that only the most blatant acts of criminality should grounds for impeachment? Thus, eliminating any need for an investigation.
I'm learning more and more about Scalia. I strongly appreciate how rigorously he stuck to his methodology of adjudicating cases. Especially in the high court, judging the constitutionality of a case, one must have a consistent and rigorous methodology. If not, then the court is liable to drift into more and more subjectivism, ove time, in its interpretation of the constitution, creating precedents that are not well thought through, and which deviate more and more from the original meaning of the constitution. This is why I agree with the textualist interpretation of the constitution. When applying a text to a situation, it only makes sense that you must understand the authors' original intent and its limits, especially in the case of the constitution because it's very purpose is to define the limits of governmental authority.
Does no one on the right ever bring themselves up by their boot straps like they want everyone else to? Justice Gorsuch of course had a parent high in government but I’m sure he thinks nothing of his privilege.
1981lashlarue well I was browsing RUclips, was recommended to watch this video on Scalia, started watching it and was surprised Neil Gorsuch had a mother high in the Reagan administration. Then I saw this parent comment where it is mentioned mother is in this video. That got me to thinking about my distaste for nepotism and privilege in high levels of government and the inherent hypocrisy the privileged class displays when they tell poor people to just work hard and pull themselves up without the slightest hint of acknowledgment that may just maybe they got where they were not because they’re so smart and hard working but because they had some help from their parents like Gorsuch. Sorry for my run on sentence and i have no idea why and comment on RUclips needs relevance. It’s the Internet for gods sake.
This is one of the best videos I have seen in a long time. I am so tired of low calibre, low class, low IQ, populist, "modern" videos. I can finally listen to some intelligent people... thank you.
This is actually mesmerizing and euphoric in how it reveals the true power and potential of why the Constitution is to be implemented in the United States. It’s to balance out power and to give checks and balances to each body of government to not only limit but separate balances of power in how it should work not just in its laws of practice but how it should uphold itself to properly function for the Will of the Country, so to speak. This goes to show that what was really needed wasn’t an investigation or straightforward judicial punishment but a governmental body convention to not only provide a proper verdict but to give a better understanding and implementation of such a case for future use and reference. Clearly a lot was missed at that time and it would have brought the people of government closer to understanding and discerning how the Constitution works For The People
The gentleman who describers his approach as simplistic really means that he doesn’t think that the court is bound by the written text, The impeachment clause means that Congress does have a check on the president but one limited by the need of the agreement of House and Senate.
Heller is Scalia's greatest opinion because an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against the destruction of our republic and we came 1 SCOTUS vote away from losing it.
It might’ve been possible to overthrow a government with armed citizens in 1776, but it was near impossible less than 100 years later in 1861 and it’s entirely impossible now. I support the second amendment, but let’s not pretend its to protect from tyrannical government. It’s not.
@@especiallyabsent it very much would be if we ever cross that rubicon. armed citizens far exceed government officers and military. not that those today would even engage in war against citizens but there simply wouldnt be enough govt personnel to oppose the armed citizenry.
@endorphinjunkie. Who the hell is the US always so scared of? It seems like a country of snowflakes being frightened of the boogieman constantly. I know money in politics and FOX news is responsible for much of this frail state, but I wish you all courage beyond violence for the future..
@@especiallyabsent must not know history the south came close to victory many times and was so close to d.c they could smell the shit if it wasn't for some brilliant generals and only marginal people running the south they could have won look at how worried Lincoln was about losing and how he won the election based off 1 small victory
@@Apolloneek I think you’re missing the point. The south didn’t win. They believed the government was depriving them of their property, and they lost. Which makes them losers. Losers then, losers now. The confederate flag is the flag of losers. Racist, whiny losers.
Article I, Section 2, explicitly gives the House of Representatives the exclusive authority of impeachment. Article II, Section 4, specifies which offenses and which government officials are subject to impeachment. SURELY, we cannot expect the House to perform this DUTY if the House cannot impanel a legal team -- separate from the executive branch and separate from the judicial branch -- to investigate the alleged crimes and misdemeanors. This does NOT give congress the authority to investigate civilians or state employees, but it does give the House the EXCLUSIVE duty to investigate the president, the president's cabinet, any officer in the military, the FBI, the CIA, the US Marshal's office, etc. -- any federal officer may be impeached by the House of Representatives for crimes and misdemeanors.
Once again it seemed like Justice Scalia was simply saying to Congress, "That's your job. Have the courage to do it" Sometimes it does seem like Congress doesn't mind damaging the structure of the separation of powers if it means evading responsibility. Everyone likes authority, somewhat fewer like responsibility.
@@Russell_Huston That’s EXACTLY what he’s saying!!!! Same thing with the sentencing committee (see.... Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989))!!!!
Seperation of powers is a great thing, but one shouldn't confuse that with any 'ideal' seperation, or imagine the us constitution to be free from inherent flaws. While i agree with Scalias opinon, he would be even wiser to admit those flaws within the constitution when he sees them, and yet still uphold them. Afterall its not his job to fix it, come to think of it, whos job is it?
"this wolf comes as a wolf" Amen. Scalia knew anyone attempting to discern the Constitution/Bill of Rights stands on the shoulders of giants in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. God bless him.
i don't see how the founders intent was to give the legislative branch judicial powers (impeachment) and executive powers (ind. counsel) over the executive. impeachment is the check over the executive, hence it is spelled out in such detail. it seems overreaching to use executive powers. like scotus deciding it will review all legislation for unconstitutionality and rewrite parts it doesn't agree with because cases take too long to get to them, if at all
the flaw in ointment of Scalia's dissent is that the current court seems incapable of judging cases based on any form of methodology, but now renders decisions based solely on ideology.
All though the past couple weeks seem to be a glimmer of hope….I hope your comment wasn’t intent on casting shade on the recent decisions. If so then you may wanna read your comment a hundred times over and then read the constitution a hundred times over.
@@danielfioretti5049 no need to cast shade on recent decisions--they are politically shady enough on their own.... I truly miss and respect the wisdom and balance of Justice Scalia, even though I don't always agree with his decisons.
You know people make this claim because a case has political overtones....but political overtones is far different than actually purely political. Many people who are for abortion for example have never read a SCOTUS decision much less cared to consider the legal reasoning.
lol... you saw the journalists that asked Kelly..5x...". which river....". ha ha.. thrown under the bus...... mnbc wld ask which bus..? chicken cross the road..... cnn wld asked which road...? ha ha
whenever your argument basically comes down to claiming the founding fathers "didn't think about ____ one way or the other," that they simply lacked the foresight to even contemplate what would happen in ____ scenario, you basically know you're full of it. especially when ____ scenario is not some uniquely unforeseeable circumstance, when it doesn't involve advanced technology or radical social change, but is something that easily could have happened during the founding generation. this guy at 5:27 is seriously trying to argue that the founding fathers didn't put any thought into how impeachment would work out in practice? I mean, is that even remotely reasonable? one of the fundamental preoccupations of the Constitution, the Federalist, etc., was to prevent another Julius Caesar from arising. that's the central purpose of the separation of powers. and you mean to tell me the founding fathers didn't bother entertaining what would happen in their new form of government when the Senate voted to kick Julius Caesar out of his dictatorship? they didn't even bother thinking about the real-world application of their most central preoccupation? sorry, but no. that's just utter BS. the only reason anyone would say something like that is to excuse disagreeing with the conclusion the founding generation actually arrived at. you know and I know the founding generation contemplated exactly this question and came up with an answer. your problem is you don't like that answer. so now you're going to argue that answer wasn't well-founded, it wasn't the result of serious thought, it may not even have been a forceful prescription, so we _ought_ to overrule it. as Scalia so often said, if you think we _ought_ to do something we're not doing, pass a law. persuade your neighbors to change the law. don't gaslight me that the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly says so you can change the law without having to persuade anyone of the merits of your point of view.
Scalia was famous for reminding people that finding "right and wrong" in a case is not the job of a Supreme Court Judge. Applying the law as *required by the US Constitution should be the only persuit of the SCOTUS even if the outcome appears to be terribly unfair to one of the parties before them. .
One of the perhaps fatal assumptions in the Constitution is that the Administrative branch, which is the only one of the three branches to have a national police force and military to enforce their positions, will bow to the laws passed by Congress and the legal rulings of the SCOTUS.🤔
Despite what Richard Pildes of NYU Law School says here, Scalia's dissent is now widely supported on _both_ sides. Even leftist Linda Greenhouse of the NYT wrote about that in 1999, saying that Scalia was prescient in his opinion a decade earlier.
This comes off as a commericial for the supreme court and Scalia. Time will tell if the ruling is good enough for now or if congress will pass a better law.
You do know that Pildes probably gave one interview that the editors of this video cut in pieces that are shown mixed with the other interviews, don't you? If you wanted to judge Pildes, you would need to watch the whole original material and, from there, decide if he's repetitious and fruitless.
His whiny unsupported criticism....just because he was right about some parts and I am not smart enough to understand the rest doesn't mean he was right about everything. Wimpy E. Coyote.
Looking at how this played put during trump/ russia, Scalia was right. I remember people saying that trump couldve fired mueller or something (right). If he did, congress and the senate wouldve almost certainly gone ahead with removing the president. It was pretty much acknowledged that trump was gonna get fierce political backlash for removing mueller
with one major caveat. there is a difference between "independent counsel"...and "special councel". Scalia never had the opportunity to rule on what replaced the independent counsel that converted to "special councel". Some of the arguments are similar...but given the special counsel is fundamentally and mechanically different than the independent counsel and how it is formed and from what basis in constitutional powers (or limits)...we cannot really find his dissent in olsen to have clear application into matters of the special counsel or of that involving the investigation of President Trump...which I WILL REMIND< was based on a manufactured FRAUD run by both members of congress, clinton, AND THE DOJ! Scalia, had he been alive to rule on the many lawsuits involving russia russia russia fraud would have very likely demanded to see fisa court records...and he would have determined AS THE DOJ CONCEALED FOR 4 YEARS that it was manufactured bullshit. His clue would have been the absence of any credible wood's files AND the unlawful surveillance order to people in "his orbit" up to and including the CIA asset, carter page who was PLANTED in his wheelhouse, given that the DOJ AND CONGRESS HAD ALREADY BANNED THE "about clause" of the surveillance powers (17 of 702). Scalia would have shredded most of every single lawsuit and challenge made by the DOJ. If you want to know the truth...stop watching tv. You were conned by the FBI/DOJ/DOD/CIA and the media was complicit in manufacturing false allegations of "collusion" and narratives involving criminal conspiracy. scalia was no fool and he could not be compromised and blackmailed from prior corrupt acts. That is not true with a majority of the jurist during impeacment. these are facts...undisputed. Most Americans have the heads so far up their asses over orange man bad and mean tweets, they were and continue to be the blissful idiots who refused to even notice that unelected officials were abusing the most dangerous powers given by congress. not one single criminal in this conspiracy has experienced justice. Barr was the bondo...Durham was and is the spray paint.
If a state law says "grandchildren inherit from their grandparents," and a particular grandchild kills his grandparents, would he inherit? Give me a simple answer.
this video didn't explain what the opinion is or what it means in layman's terms. all I saw was a bunch of talking-heads gushing over Scalia and his dissent but not really explaining what it is. how about an analogy or examples of Scalia's dissent mean in real cases.
Because of this decision Congress can appoint a special prosecutor who works independent of the Department of Justice if Congress wants to investigate the President or someone in the Executive branch. Scalia said that the President should have full control over the DOJ which would including all federal law enforcement officials, investigators and prosecutors. Scalia says that Congress does have power to remove the President through impeachment if Congress feels that the President is keeping the DOJ from doing their job against the President or other executive officials. So Scalia believes that Congress does not need the unconstitutional power of appointing a special prosecutor. Both the President and the Supreme Court justices can be removed from office through impeachment by Congress so through impeachment Congress has a check on the highest powers in the executive and judicial branches.
I'm not a lawyer or a politician, just a guy who's studied the Constitution on my own according to the words of the men who wrote it and got it ratified, including the writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights. So, this is how I understand this case, Justice Scalia's opinion and the words of those who oppose it... I've watched politics and studied politicians to know how their words and actions affect We, the People... Then what they say about the results. For instance, the highest poverty and crime rates are ALWAYS in cities and states under Democratic control. In this case, the office of an Independent Counsel or Special Prosecutor was deemed beyond the President's power to interfere or fire. Why was this set up? Just as Congress alone has the authority to create laws, yet Progressives set up the alphabet soup Bureaucracies to create regulations and laws without politicians having to answer for said regulations and laws, hence oppressing We, the People by proxy without losing the possibility of losing reelection... The office of an Independent Counsel or Special Prosecutor has never been used for any reason but to bring down a President or those around him, not in my 50+ years of observing. Thus, the office is set up for he sole purpose of doing CONGRESS' JOB of investigation, and, again, for the sole purpose of protecting politicians from losing their reelection bids. It's a theater to sway people from one party to the other, no matter which party is using it... Justice Scalia was right, it's unconstitutional. Those who say otherwise don't want to lose the unconstitutional power it gives them and those with whom they agree.
The state with the highest crime rate is Alaska. The next is New Mexico. The third is Tennessee. Crime is not a partisan issue, where “democrats” allow more crime than “republicans.” That’s a tired talking point that’s been run up since the 80s. That said, I sincerely don’t understand the connection between democratic “crime rates” and the special counsel. Whatever. Progressives wanting to make bureacracies in order to skirt around congressional authority? All of the progressive ideas I’ve seen have been rooted in legislative ideas. The “Green New Deal”, Roe v. Wade being legislated, increasing the minimum wage, Medicare for All, these are all things theyre proposing for Congress in order to be legislated. Further, people DO hold people accountable for creating regulations. That was a whole reason why Democrats lost the House and Senate and why Trump ran on cutting regulations. I’d also like to remind you that it was a Republican that created the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress has been TRYING to do it’s job. The current administration has simply been ignoring subpoenas and dismissing all watchdogs. That’s the entire idea of this case and the law in question, when an executive branch uses it’s power to simply refuse Congressional checks there still needs to be a way to hold the executive branch accountable. To me, it sounds like you take a lot of talking points from Tucker Carlson, but you like to think of yourself as the pragmatic conservative. Scalia was the lone dissent of eight other justices, justices who have studied the law for decades. Just because his defense was powerful does not mean it was right. I hope you keep studying that Constitution, though.
@@DeliriousKnife Tucker Carlson wasn't out of high school when I started seeing through Progressives... Baltimore. Chicago. New Orleans. Washington DC. Detroit. New York. The crime rates are high. The use of guns for crimes are ridiculous. The ratio of minorities to whites arrested and convicted of crime is everything the race baiters need to cry out against racism... All generational Progressive strongholds, magnificent examples of what corruption and treasonous government can do to the People and still get elected by blaming other people for their crimes.
@@DeliriousKnife BTW, I said "Progressive", not "Democrat". There's Progressives on both sides of the aisle. Just as Barack Obama said, After 3/11, George W. Bush used the fear that gripped this nation to establish our own Gestapo, The Department of Homeland Security AND pass the Patriot Act. Warrantless wiretaps? Suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of terrorism? The Republican Party may not be as riddled with Progressives as the Democrat Party is, but EVERY Progressive uses the means and methods that they believe will bring about their Utopian (read: Socialist) dreams in this nation. That's why Dems are called Communists and 'Pubs are called Fascists. Bot Communism and Fascism are Socialist, only differing on whether business should be privately or publicly owned. If you haven't figured out that both parties are actually gaming out how they're going to work We, the People, that all we're seeing is theater, carefully scripted and acted out to get the footsoldiers of each party to do their bidding... Are you actually paying attention?
After the November 2022 elections, we may anticipate that this issue will resonate even further. What I think we have seen in the last two years is the Congress retrieving some of the powers it ceded to the Executive Branch for many decades -- and that is a good thing.
When I was in law school, I wouldn't have noticed and wouldn't have cared wether or not there was ditzy music as long as I found the legal issue being addressed to be interesting.
Im indeed a Massive Supporter and fan of Antonin Scalia. He was a Intellectual Colossus!!! But it's very insightful to read Prof Jonathan Turley's opinion on the same Matter. Turley is like Scalia a Constitutionalist and Madisonian Scholar although they are "politically" on opposite sides of the spectrum. Furthermore it's interesting to note that although Scalia and Turley are essential on opposite "sides" they do find the middle ground. In my view, and note that I'm Conservative, Jonathan Turley's immense talent is not being fully utilised.
The framers were brilliant and knew the only way to fairly prosecute a President would be to force a super majority vote by the Congress. Ridiculous how much we've tossed this aside. Ted Olson passed away today. RIP Ted, you were a fantastic American. For those unaware, Ted's wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. They were on the phone with each other until the very end. God bless, Ted. Thank you for helping with The Federalist Society and leaving a lasting legacy.
That a law could be abused, including for partisan purposes, is not sufficient reason for the Court to strike it down. Many laws could be abused in practice; yet is the problem there in the law itself, or in its application in a given, particular instance? I can think of several laws that could be abused. There is no requirement that laws be free from any possible abuse in their execution in order to be deemed constitutional. What kind of abuse, with what implications for the separation of powers or other constitutional provisions? Yes, those are the key questions that must matter here. But it's an error to think broadly that only the possible abuse or misuse of a law in its application is enough on its own to strike a law down. In any case, the Attorney General had some statutory authority to dismiss the Independent Counsel prosecutor under the Ethics in Government Act, with cause described there, and the AG is under the President's authority; thus, it's difficult to see how Executive Power was unduly compromised. Scalia was admirably passionate but mistaken here; Olson is incorrect to assert that there is a legal consensus that Scalia was right. Jurists are divided.
1. It _”is incorrect to assert that there is a legal consensus that Scalia was right”_ Really? How many articles can you find praising Morrison? How many disparaging it? Justice Kagen, herself the antithesis to Scalia, even said his opinion was “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.” Of course Congress eventually realized the error of their ways and refused to re-authorize the Ethics in Government Act, opting instead for a statutory scheme completely within the permissible limits of Scalia’s dissent.
2. . _it's difficult to see how Executive Power was unduly compromised_ Unduly compromised?? The Constitution provides that the Chief Executive’s role not be compromised AT ALL. This was Scalia’s entire point. 3. _That a law could be abused, including for partisan purposes, is not sufficient reason for the Court to strike it down_ You devote the majority of your comment to the potential abuse argument. Do you really think Scalia’s basis for striking down the act was because it “could be abused”? It was not. His rational was simple and pure. The Act was contrary to Art II of the Constitution. Really not complicated. 4. "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in _a President of the United States_ Art. II, § 1, cl. 1 (emphasis Scalia’s).
@@wernerfoerster3666 I wonder if you understand that both the office of the Attorney General and the Justice Department itself were created by *acts of Congress*. Legislation. Subsequent legislation then defined further their scopes of powers specifically. This issue is no different, my friend. It's no surprise that Morrison v. Olson was overwhelmingly agreed with only one emotional nutcase against it. The reason why there are articles defending his dissent has nothing to do with constitutional reasoning; it's simply an odd fetish issue for far-right ideologues who do not understand the role of Congress in structuring the federal government, and their poor understanding is surprising, awkward and shameful. I have no doubt that many of the spineless sycophants who defend his bizarre dissent would fellate Scalia if given the chance.
@@briandavid6879 1. FYI: Your argument loses credibility right off the bat when you name-call and employ vulgarities as to one of the most brilliant jurists of all time. It shows you are too emotionally invested and have abandoned all logic and reason. A common malady of today's woke left. 2. I'll bet you think the DOJ is "independent" of the President too. 3. Congress is merely the funding mechanism. It appears that you are saying that since Congress appropriates funds to the executive branch, that they somehow derive some sort of decision making or substantive power over it as a result. Of course, that's nonsense. "Shameful" using your vernacular. Congressional "oversight" regarding how appropriated money is spent, IS NOT substantive authority. You seem not to understand this concept. 4. You need to read up on the THREE branches of government - their respective lanes and SEPARATION of powers in general. Maybe start by re-reading my original comment and reference to the Constitution.
@@wernerfoerster3666 Hello, nitz. I think I’d rather die than be ‘woke’; it’s a ridiculous term and ideal, to me. Look, you can remove my colourful language and yet my argument remains; no need to repeat it. Your nostalgia for Nixon and Scalia is blinding you to the obvious. It’s always been interesting to me how the right in US gladly pounced on Clinton with Ken Starr for his indiscretion, using exactly this legislation just before it sunset, despite everything you’re throwing out here… I mean you really do want it both ways; you’re confused and hypocritical. Scalia was an ideologue and uber-religious buffoon who did not allow himself to see the key role that Congress plays in structuring the federal government. That’s fact. More mistaken would be a tough thing to reach. I’m confident that in the future we’ll see reason restored. It’s very satisfying to me that he was all alone in that emotional, mistaken corner.
@@briandavid6879 1. Okay, you don't subscribe to the American founding principles of separation of power between the 3 branches of government. Got it. I would suggest you propose a constitutional amendment providing for a 4th branch - that of Independent Counsel. 2. You obfuscate the original issue with many tangents. To re-center you: POTUS, (VIA HIS VARIOUSTHREE LETTER AGENCIES) HAS EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE OVER ENFORCING FEDERAL LAWS (PROSECUTIONS). PERIOD. THERE IS NO SHARING OF THIS POWER WITH CONGRESS. 2a. If you think POTUS is corrupt then the Constitution provides for this as well. Removal. Like Scalia - brilliant in its simplicity. 3. I never said the Independent Counsel statute was correct visa vie Ken Star. Yes, it took the Repubs' and Starr to shake the Dems out of their attempted hypocrisy to demonstrate that a prosecutor who was not under the direct and total control of the Chief Executive is contrary to Art 2. That's why they agreed to let the IC statute die on the vine. 4. The problem with folks like you is that you are results oriented. You stomp your foot if you don't get the outcome you desire. The law doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way. The Constitutional text says what it says (or doesn't say). Scalia was clear on this ... rendering many opinions which were favorable to criminals ... certainly not furthering conservatism.
We don't need an independent council, we need congress to do its job when called upon. The same with all the regulatory agencies. The EPA should only regulate laws the congress passes not create laws themselves.
You may have noticed that Congress hasn't done its job for at least the last 105 years. And they _won't_ do their job until We The People do _our_ job, which is vote them out for not doing their job. If anything the Supreme Court over the last century has made it progressively easier for Congress to abdicate its responsibility for making law and put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats populating the Executive Branch -- and SCOTUS has done that largely through evolutionist judicial philosophy. Scalia spent his entire tenure trying to pull the Court back to the textualist philosophy that was largely followed in the Judiciary before evolutionist judges began to permeate every level of the court system.
"But this wolf comes as a wolf". I honestly found law boring until I left Ireland for the U.S & later joined Boston PD. I discovered Scalia & found his writing fascinating, interesting, funny & easy to understand. Later as a rancher in OK, I found the audio tapes from SCOTUS & ate them up. I too am Catholic with 9 children. And one of the boys joined the clergy & is now a Benedictine brother. R.I.P Justice Antonin Scalia.🔥🙏📿⛪😇👑💙👮♂️
Born in Ireland, emigrated and became a cop in Boston, and THEN you went on to be a rancher in Oklahoma? I hope you know how to tell a story because brother, whether you know it or not, you’ve got stories to tell!!
The guy with the glasses, who is so desperately trying not to admit Scalia is right, is, in my view, what's wrong with so many lawyers and law schools today. He's obviously not an originalist when it comes to the Constitution. He believes that the courts can add, seemingly at will, whatever they want to the Constitution. This is just a flat-out wrong way to think. He is saying, in his own hypocritical way, that the President shouldn't have certain powers bc it can be viewed as totalitarian. Yet, he's allowing an independent prosecutor dictatorial powers to go after the executive by allowing them to basically have another executive branch under the already existing executive branch. There's already a clear process in the Constitution in dealing with these types of issues. Needless to say, I agree completely with Scalia. He left us far too soon (in a mysterious way, I might add).
11:44 - The 757 did not hit the E-Ring. 18 ft. diameter holes through each office wall of both the ONI and Pentagon Budget Analyst Office, clean through to the center of the Pentagon. It was a bunker buster missile.
After 70+ years of watching I conclude that both politicians and our legal system have very little regard for the citizenry. Politicians, many of whom are complete idiots make law after law and are nothing but reactionaries. Our courts and legal system , are charged with enforcing the resulting reactionary B.S There is nothing about our system that prevents crime or abuse of the citizenry by politicians, disenchanted cops or "activist" courts. The entire legislative and legal process is ridiculously expensive and takes so long that the results are largely irrelevant. Nixon was a crook but neither the courts or politicians dealt with him. And you guys are still arguing about it today. I think Scalia was a smart buy, but his only job was to nitpick decisions make in lower courts. .
I think Justice Kalia was most eloquent when he said that the section of the voting rights act that the court struck down were “racial entitlement.“ And he was correct to say that Congress and more specifically the Senate when it re-authorized every section of the voting rights act in 2006 on unanimous vote was too concerned about being portrayed as racist, so since the legislative branch was too afraid to take an unpopular position justice, Celia took it upon himself to make sure that these sections were deemed unconstitutional. The wet and wisdom of justice Celia lives on today in the three justices appointed by President Trump. It’s just a shame that they don’t have such colorful language to describe such burdens on society.
Pildes from NYU is unbearable to listen to in this. He draws out his words and pauses for dramatic effect, but still can't hide his condescension for Scalia with his backhanded faint praise ("brilliant...but also simple analysis"). This type of man is like nails across a chalkboard.
It amazes me the complicity that can be added to an already complex document, where the thought process of the founding fathers was simple, yet, needed to be written in such form where the simple thought doesn’t get contaminated. Justice Scalia was right and let me add, he was also right in simplifying the understanding of the constitution because the constitution, in concept, is simple. It was made to be better than the British non existen constitution by which, neither, the people or the government had more power over the other. May be, we need to stop complicating crap by scholar language and take the simplicity of it.
@@thestation4768 But they intended for the constitution to be a living document and amendable, so when the 19th amendment came around it’s exactly what the founders wanted :)
1. Most legal journals and articles have sided with Scalia over the years. 2. Congress refused to re-enact the statute after 15 year due at least in part to Scalia's rationale 3. Justice Kagen, herself the antithesis to Scalia, even said his opinion was “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.” 4. A simple and elementary reading of the constitution reveals Scalia was correct.
The founding fathers gave us the articles of impeachment, therefore we DO NOT need additional procedures. By matter of CONVICTION alone, does the Congress have authority to impeach a President WITHOUT an investigation so to say otherwise, that an investigation is needed BEFORE impeachment ignores precedent.
Left unmentioned is Scalia's incredible _courage._ He'd been on the Court less than two years when he issued his dissent, standing up against the rest of the Court. Most people, having been around for such a short period, would have just gone along to get along. Scalia gets tremendous credit just for guts alone.
I think you're wrong. They are all so experienced, even a junior member of the Court is at the very top of their profession and has years and years of experience. The experience, plus the environment fostered by the other Justices, I don't think there is any pressure from any of them to go with the flow instead of making your own honest conclusions. So I think courage is the wrong word, it's just impressive to be correct when you're the lone dissenter.
@@yonatanben-chaim9747 I hear you, but I think you're being unrealistic. Any time someone ascends to a highly exclusive club of the absolutely top, most highly talented group of experts, there has got to be an intimidation factor should it come to standing alone in opposition. I refer not only to the SCOTUS, but to any group in rarified air. Could be a world leader among Allies, or a head coach or owner of a major league team. When you're the new guy in town, and literally everyone else thinks you're wrong, that would normally be quite intimidating. Far easier to just quietly go along.
Perhaps there is a clearly constitutional way to accomplish essentially the same thing as appointment of an IG. Congress could set out jurisdictional authority for suits involving subject matter of "the highest executive positions" in a statute for the Supreme Court such that an aggrieved party could file a lawsuit seeking appointment of a Special Master much like the court does for some disputes between States. Justice Scalia RIP
![The Role of the Chief Justice [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJODkuIACgg/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Role of the Chief Justice [No. 86]](/img/tr.png)
Too much side noise, not enough Scalia.
Where the heck is his opinion online?
@@RNA0ROGER www.oyez.org You can read his dissent as well as hear his oral dissent at the case announcement.
Search for the opinion at Scotusblog.com
cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep487/usrep487654/usrep487654.pdf
originalism is astrology for law types
How I missed that the Federalist Society has a RUclips channel is beyond me... how brilliant. Thanks YT algorithm. And an informative video.
Is Leonard Leo a *good* man?
Would you leave an elderly person, a young woman or a Black American friend of yours alone in a room with him?
In what madrassa was he radicalized?
@Xinnie The Pooh All ideas are conservative ideas. Read Ecclesiastes.
Haha, you keep it real mane. Leonard Leo ain’t no fuck around shit, he one- hunna ☝🏾percent pure catholic old school breed. He strikes as a magical creature in that sweet spot after brown vs board of edu. But before Miranda. The place is good for white men, hell even Catholics are good but not the presidency, 56-60’. ‘Umerica’ be lookin’ like Shia alawite Syria, Sunni Iraq, Aparthied South Africa haha 🤣
I found it interesting the lawyer who was against the opinion came around to say that Scalia was "right about the the way the independent council act would act in practice" The lawyer never seemed to put it together that this wasn't Scalia taking a narrow view, this was Scalia understanding the wisdom that was built into the constitutional process. The lawyer stated that without the process impeachment would become rampant and political. How many impeachments have we had in our history? How many special council investigations have we had? What of the 2 methods has worked and which is used as a political tool?
this wasn't Scalia taking a narrow view, this was Scalia understanding the wisdom that was built into his version of the constitutional process. Like every other Justice, Scalia had his own particular line of reasoning which was not the only way to see things.
@@deltasquared7777 agreed. Which is the fault of going about the situation just to reach a judgment. Scalia wanted a reform of the investigation to be had to where a better way to process things should be implemented but of course when it’s for political gain the people in power just want a verdict so they can seem right and look like heroes and appeal to the masses who don’t know the intricate details to be made for such a process. Of course that is how politics are used in the mainstream media. Leaving out the entirety of the situation and only pointing towards what helps a certain narrative for their political agenda
It reminded me of people saying Karl Marx was right in diagnosing some problems but wrong about the solution to said problems.
@@deltasquared7777 There is more than one methodology to interpret the Constitution, but living constitutionalism is inherent unconstitutional. Judges intuiting or inferring things out of the text that don't actually exist in the text is effectively removing will of the governed from the people who elected those legislators that voted whatever amendment or statute into effect.
Roe v. Wade for example was the living constitutionalists literally creating a right out of thin air, no amendment process happened to actually create it, then it was imposed on all 50 states with no democratic vote. An even more direct abolition of consent of the governed in that case.
@@freespeechenjoyer the current administration and its Supreme Court really does not pay much attention to following precepts of the Constitution
Simply the greatest, most smart, most analytic judge ever lived in the USA. Period!
Thurgood…Marshall. Ruth…Ginsburg. Earl…Warren
How profound this is today with the lawfare that Donald Trump has experienced during and after his presidency. Scalia was ahead of his time.
That's because he is a criminal. A convicted criminal, by now. Simple answer.
Scalia was a pure constitutionalist. People like the NY Law School guy, and I guess the rest of the court at the time, quite often think in terms of what is good, or bad, for the country. Over time this good or bad feelings lead to failures of judicial prudence and inappropriate power of a branch of government. The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is not to determine what is good or bad for the country, but to determine constitutionality of cases. In that light Justice Scalia was the great Justice of all during his tenure in the court. Everyone should study Scalia's writings to understand the foundation of the country (The Constitution) and how "feeling decisions" have often produced disastrous effects.
That ideology is flawed because we shouldn’t blindly follow the constitution. Even the founding followers left provisions in to amend or change it. A lot of scalia’s decisions came from pure biased interpretations of the constitution ie his dissent in roe v wade, justices had to use their own judgment to decide whether life begins at conception or birth and that the constitution says nothing about abortion, therefore it should be left up to the states... but it SHOULDNT be left up to the states because having the right to your own body should be guaranteed for each individual.
Quite the opposite. It’s not blind obedience to the constitution that is at stake. It’s the overt willingness to misinterpret the constitution to fit your ends that proves why the Supreme Court should defer to the constitution. Justice Scalia was absolutely correct.
@@garbonomics perfectly said! sad how people like @jaylin jamerson see it that way. we are heading to a generation where people are misinterpreting things because of "perception" , "political correctness", feelings etc. losing site to common sense as well.
@@Jaylinjamerson your entire argument is flawed. First, Justice Scalia wasn’t even a member of the Court when Roe v. Wade was decided. Second, it was the majority in that case who literally made up a new “right” within the 14th Amendment - the “right to privacy.” Where do you find any mention of privacy in the Constitution? Nowhere. It doesn’t exist. Any mention in the contemporary writings of the amendment’s authors? Nope. Dozens of states had laws outlawing abortion by the time the 14th Amendment was passed, yet none of them were overturned by the 14th Amendment for more than 100 years because that clearly wasn’t its purpose. How about today? The NSA and CIA secretly collect data on citizens without any regard for “privacy.” Has the Court put a stop to any of that? Hell no! You could make an argument that the 9th Amendment applied to Roe, but it’s complete BS to say that the 14th Amendment gives women a right to murder their children.
@@Jaylinjamerson Ya and there is a process to change it, which is not judicial. For every "good" that the Court has created, I can list you a "bad". Wickard v. Filburn is a good example of how astoundingly stupid a set of judges can be, even within SCOTUS. Imagine being told by the government you can't grow a crop beyond a quota that they set, even if the crop was grown for personal consumption. SCOTUS voted unanimously to do just that.
Scalia was absolutely right on this one: If the President is abusing power, or corrupt, then Congress has the clear authority and framework to remove him or her from office.
Wrong.
Does Congress have the appropriate framework? At first, they have a suspicion, but without investigation of the suspicion, they don't have enough to remove.
@@Achill101 they do but they lack what the law enforcement is suppose to exhibit. too partisan to do the right thing and congress doesnt even know the technicalities of the law.
@@kasimk4 - I would expect many in Congress to understand the law, as there are many lawyers in congress, and some to understand even the technicalities, as they were prosecutors, like Trey Gowdy. But they don't have investigators today and no way to make plea bargains to bring light into a crime complex. And, of course, they are partisan, but so is the leadership of the administration, too.
@@Achill101 true and thats what differentiates them from doj. we expect congress to be partisans and doj not to be. congress cant be trusted because of it and doj should.
Scalia was one of the giants of American Jurisprudence. He understood the meaning and the function of our constitution. May he Rest In Peace.
Well he was murdered so there's that
Aeneas C. Stamos Justice Scalia was a corrupt varmint.
@@readynowforever3676 I am sad to hear that.
Aeneas C. Stamos It’s unfortunate that he was that.
If he truly “understood the meaning and function of our (*Constitution)”, he would not have seen it as a stagnated relic, that needed a strict originalist scholarly exegesis, as if it was one of those mythical fabled fairytale doctrines, such as the Bible or the Quran.
He would have seen it as living, virtually biological document (that may need to evolve). And he was all to willing to engage in jurist activism & political partisanship when it suited the circumstance.
He even once said that he was reluctant to leave the bench because he didn’t want someone to “come along and undo all of my work”. As if he was ordained by some imaginary god or by the spirit of the framers themselves to be the absolute authority.
For that, I’m glad he’s dead.
And the historical corruption & criminal engagement of Donald Trump has proven his decision to be absolutely DEAD WRONG.
Thanks for responding friend, as I wanted the opportunity to expound and elaborate on my dissent and disgust with Justice Scalia.
You cannot truly understand the meaning and function of the Constitution, unless you were there when it was written. It is ignorant for people to go around yapping about how they’re strict constitutionalists. It is ignorant to believe you know the true meaning of this document and ignorant to believe the founding fathers thought the same way about the document as some modern day justice. So no, Scalia just had a conservative view of the Constitution. Doesn’t mean it is right.
I remember when Judge Scalia came to my law school he humbly said that being a Supreme Court Justice did not give him the right to make law and come up with justifications in the Constitution that weren't there. And then some doof in the class, who clearly did not like Scalia's opinions, told Scalia that Scalia was "wise" and therefore DID have that right. Dude was clearly oblivious to the fact that he's saying someone he disagrees with (Scalia) should unilaterally impose laws on all of us. That was the moment when I understood the deep flaw in leftist thinking about the Constitution.
If the doof in your class praised Scalia as wise, what are the chances he suffered from leftist thinking?
@@Achill101 The doof was a leftist. He only told Scalia he was "wise," in order to make the argument that unelected, lifetime-appointed judges should make rules that govern every facet of our lives. But the doof clearly did not believe in Scalia's "wisdom" - which exposed the fallacy in his argument. Leftists are not concerned with logic. Their opinions and statements are based on emotion.
Joe Vartanian THAT’S because a lot of liberals are stupid!!
Peter T doof appealed to authority
If you ever argue with a leftist on the merits of the law, the argument quickly changes to what is the right thing to do for society. A value judgement on what is the right thing to do is always a moving target that depends on a person's judgement - it basically means that the law is meaningless.
I miss Justice Scalia so much. What a mind. What a man.
He was a bizarre, unbalanced, emotional ideologue who allowed his personal ideology to invade his already poor constitutional reasoning.
@@briandavid6879 A swing and a miss.
He was a great man. I love the fact he and Ginsburg were best buddies despite being opposite ends of the spectrum. They were better people than we are today.
I wish he was still with us, but I'm also grateful we had him as long as we did. May he rest in peace for all time.
Best legal philosopher of the past 50 years
Best of the 20th century and in U.S. History, Scalia imo ranks up there with our founding fathers. Brilliant mind!
@Vincent Cuttolo Interesting footnote of history, President Reagan had both Scalia and Bork in mind for the appointment. He made the "political" decision to appoint Scalia first because he believed with Bork's long ties to D.C. (e.g., Solicitor General,...), he would have no problem appointing Bork on the next go around. It turns out that Senator Kennedy called in every "chit" at his disposal to turn Judge Bork from a proper noun to the verb you mentioned ("Borked"). The then Senior Senator from Massachusetts knew that Bork and Scalia combined on the Supreme Court would change history, and felt compelled to not allow that to happen. The hearings associated with the Judge Bork confirmation process, engineered by Senator Kennedy, obviously, with then Senator Biden's agreement, served to "poison the well." The people of this country are still feeling the effects of that process and that battle,...
Whoa there, you're missing a digit from your number.
Whoa there, you're missing a digit from your number.
It's a shame they killed him.
Did anyone else feel like this video was an entire hour documentary, and then be pleasantly surprised at the end that it only used 15 minutes of your time. Very nice work Federalist!
Yes, exactly! Lmao🇺🇸
The last words made me burst out crying realizing it’s true.
Scalia was wrong. We need independent counsels because so many high government officials have been corrupt. What was unconstitutional was the courts interference in Bush v Gore. They learned their lesson and demurred on Trump and Gulianis perversion of our laws.
The “Special Counsel” is a part of the idea of checks and balances. It was put in place to address suspected wrong doings by the executive branch. The idea of checks and balances is written into the Constitution. Congress has no authority to change the Constitution with a statute. That can only be done by an amendment. Call it simplistic, but that’s part of the brilliance of the Constitution, and it addresses separation of powers in just as focused a manner. Scalia was absolutely right and I hope that our SCOTUS will eventually adopt his dissent. We don’t need these circuits acts coming out of the anger of our partisan congress. It’s crippling and does damage. Our recent experience shows us how the same partisan congress can and will abuse this unconstitutional “Special Council” for partisan reasons, and then STILL use their constitutional power of impeachment.
I love and miss my favorite justice and legal philosopher.
The Translator I not American but do like Scalia.
John Bull
He went by the United States Constitution and the amendments. He truly a Justice that he knew the forefathers minds and used his knowledge of the Law
@@thomascarlier4930 hey Thomas do you think the Constitution is a living and breathing document that should grow and change with society because it was written couple hundred years ago.
@PracticalTech some laws were made for that time SOME. for and example, you have the right to bear arms. When the Constitution was written did they for see that one man can have a small hand held gun that can kill 50 people in 20 seconds?? And what do they mean by arms does that mean a tank?what I'm saying is that when I say it's a living breathing document that it should be adjusted adjusted for the times. Well I guess it is somewhat like that through amendments.. thanks for responding
Justice Scalia was a corrupt varmint.
Scalia turned me into an originalist. Thank you.
Scalia was a great jurist. His views on proportionality and the 8th Amendment were particularly eye-opening to me.
His views on the 4th is mine!!!!
@@bryonwatkins1432 I actually break with him there. I do not agree with Kyllo (and I don't agree with Katz either because I do think the 4th Amendment has a connection to physical trespass), I do not agree with his dissent in Maryland v. King, and there are some others I don't agree with either. There are a fair amount of his opinions on this subject I agree with, though, like Jardines because even an entry onto the curtilage represents a physical trespass.
Keep in mind, this case is about the independent counsel, not the special counsel.
What is the difference both legally and in terms of practice?
@Space Dandy Thank you for that concise clarification.
@@1981lashlarue VEEERY true!!!!
I don’t understand one thing: does Richard Pildes think that the founding fathers, whose entire mission was to upend what they felt was the tyrannies of King George III and the English Parliament, didn’t understand that a president may go rogue and against the will of the people?! That seems like a great leap in logic.
well, i guess you did not watch the clip. the constitution already have provision against rogue presidents. The problem is what do you mean by going rogue'? Is that going against your political beliefs or going against popular opinion.
Well these were the same founders that saw black people as being worth only as much as 3/5 of a white person
@@DeliriousKnife no. black were counted as 3/5
cause if not it will increase the representation of proslavery south.
@@Ekim1740 well that's looking at a glass half full. I think that we can both agree that slaves shouldn't have been counted, in part or in whole, towards representation. It's unfortunate that the founders needed to comprise on this, and I think that's what Sean is going for here.
@@brianhan9483 well the pt is they did not see them as 3/5 of a person like the stupid comment talking about. democrats want to count black slave to increase their representation but at the same time they dont want them to vote. Thats why many democrat initiative like gun control was primarily against black americans owning a gun to defend themselves from people who are lunching them.
The greatest dissent ever written and probably the greatest dissent that ever will be written !!!
A Leagal Mind ,extrodinary ! Semper Fi !!!!
For once RUclips recommended something worthwhile. Congress does not need an extra-Constitutional prosecutor to remove the POTUS. They need a simple majority to file articles in the House and 2/3 vote in the Senate. As usual, Scalia was right.
But how do you investigate the issue to determine whether the president should be removed? Based on Scalia you have to impeach the president just to investigate issue during the Senate trial.
@@GizmoMaltese Congress can pass an amendment that allows for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the President who cannot be terminated.
@@GizmoMaltese The founding fathers gave us the articles of impeachment, therefore we DO NOT need additional procedures. By matter of belief alone, does the Congress have authority to impeach a President WITHOUT an investigation so to say otherwise, that an investigation is needed BEFORE impeachment ignores precedent.
@@thestation4768 The reality is impeaching a president without an investigation is impractical. Every president would be impeached. You have to use some level of practicality and common sense when interpreting the constitution. Not being able to investigate issues before impeachment is silly.
@@GizmoMaltese Could it be that our founding fathers believed that only the most blatant acts of criminality should grounds for impeachment? Thus, eliminating any need for an investigation.
I'm learning more and more about Scalia. I strongly appreciate how rigorously he stuck to his methodology of adjudicating cases. Especially in the high court, judging the constitutionality of a case, one must have a consistent and rigorous methodology. If not, then the court is liable to drift into more and more subjectivism, ove time, in its interpretation of the constitution, creating precedents that are not well thought through, and which deviate more and more from the original meaning of the constitution. This is why I agree with the textualist interpretation of the constitution. When applying a text to a situation, it only makes sense that you must understand the authors' original intent and its limits, especially in the case of the constitution because it's very purpose is to define the limits of governmental authority.
He was most likely the nemesis of Obama.
2:50 Anne Gorsuch-- mother of associate SCOTUS justice Neil Gorsuch.
@M Oscar No.
Does no one on the right ever bring themselves up by their boot straps like they want everyone else to? Justice Gorsuch of course had a parent high in government but I’m sure he thinks nothing of his privilege.
@@cainpitt What's the relevance or point of that comment?
1981lashlarue well I was browsing RUclips, was recommended to watch this video on Scalia, started watching it and was surprised Neil Gorsuch had a mother high in the Reagan administration. Then I saw this parent comment where it is mentioned mother is in this video. That got me to thinking about my distaste for nepotism and privilege in high levels of government and the inherent hypocrisy the privileged class displays when they tell poor people to just work hard and pull themselves up without the slightest hint of acknowledgment that may just maybe they got where they were not because they’re so smart and hard working but because they had some help from their parents like Gorsuch. Sorry for my run on sentence and i have no idea why and comment on RUclips needs relevance. It’s the Internet for gods sake.
@@cainpitt I sense envy
Why is the Truman Show soundtrack playing in the background? Are we supposed to suspect an alternate reality?
i need the name of the background instrumental!
This is one of the best videos I have seen in a long time. I am so tired of low calibre, low class, low IQ, populist, "modern" videos. I can finally listen to some intelligent people... thank you.
This is actually mesmerizing and euphoric in how it reveals the true power and potential of why the Constitution is to be implemented in the United States. It’s to balance out power and to give checks and balances to each body of government to not only limit but separate balances of power in how it should work not just in its laws of practice but how it should uphold itself to properly function for the Will of the Country, so to speak.
This goes to show that what was really needed wasn’t an investigation or straightforward judicial punishment but a governmental body convention to not only provide a proper verdict but to give a better understanding and implementation of such a case for future use and reference.
Clearly a lot was missed at that time and it would have brought the people of government closer to understanding and discerning how the Constitution works For The People
Cut the dumb music and present more of the dissent.
Yet another brilliant piece of Reagan's brilliant legacy...the nomination of Scalia.
Maybe just look up a video of the court proceedings if you don't like the presentation.
The gentleman who describers his approach as simplistic really means that he doesn’t think that the court is bound by the written text, The impeachment clause means that Congress does have a check on the president but one limited by the need of the agreement of House and Senate.
Heller is Scalia's greatest opinion because an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against the destruction of our republic and we came 1 SCOTUS vote away from losing it.
It might’ve been possible to overthrow a government with armed citizens in 1776, but it was near impossible less than 100 years later in 1861 and it’s entirely impossible now. I support the second amendment, but let’s not pretend its to protect from tyrannical government. It’s not.
@@especiallyabsent it very much would be if we ever cross that rubicon. armed citizens far exceed government officers and military. not that those today would even engage in war against citizens but there simply wouldnt be enough govt personnel to oppose the armed citizenry.
@endorphinjunkie. Who the hell is the US always so scared of? It seems like a country of snowflakes being frightened of the boogieman constantly. I know money in politics and FOX news is responsible for much of this frail state, but I wish you all courage beyond violence for the future..
@@especiallyabsent must not know history the south came close to victory many times and was so close to d.c they could smell the shit if it wasn't for some brilliant generals and only marginal people running the south they could have won look at how worried Lincoln was about losing and how he won the election based off 1 small victory
@@Apolloneek I think you’re missing the point. The south didn’t win. They believed the government was depriving them of their property, and they lost. Which makes them losers. Losers then, losers now. The confederate flag is the flag of losers. Racist, whiny losers.
Does anyone know what the opening audio of scalia talking is from and where i can hear the whole thingv
Scalia was a brilliant man. His decisions and dissents are our history. He left us far to soon.
Why is there a wikipedia link to antonin scalia for videos like this, but there are no wiki links to ruth bader ginsburg for videos concerning her?
What is the piano piece at the beginning?
Article I, Section 2, explicitly gives the House of Representatives the exclusive authority of impeachment. Article II, Section 4, specifies which offenses and which government officials are subject to impeachment. SURELY, we cannot expect the House to perform this DUTY if the House cannot impanel a legal team -- separate from the executive branch and separate from the judicial branch -- to investigate the alleged crimes and misdemeanors. This does NOT give congress the authority to investigate civilians or state employees, but it does give the House the EXCLUSIVE duty to investigate the president, the president's cabinet, any officer in the military, the FBI, the CIA, the US Marshal's office, etc. -- any federal officer may be impeached by the House of Representatives for crimes and misdemeanors.
Once again it seemed like Justice Scalia was simply saying to Congress, "That's your job. Have the courage to do it" Sometimes it does seem like Congress doesn't mind damaging the structure of the separation of powers if it means evading responsibility. Everyone likes authority, somewhat fewer like responsibility.
@@Russell_Huston That’s EXACTLY what he’s saying!!!! Same thing with the sentencing committee (see.... Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989))!!!!
Seperation of powers is a great thing, but one shouldn't confuse that with any 'ideal' seperation, or imagine the us constitution to be free from inherent flaws. While i agree with Scalias opinon, he would be even wiser to admit those flaws within the constitution when he sees them, and yet still uphold them. Afterall its not his job to fix it, come to think of it, whos job is it?
"this wolf comes as a wolf" Amen. Scalia knew anyone attempting to discern the Constitution/Bill of Rights stands on the shoulders of giants in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. God bless him.
i don't see how the founders intent was to give the legislative branch judicial powers (impeachment) and executive powers (ind. counsel) over the executive. impeachment is the check over the executive, hence it is spelled out in such detail. it seems overreaching to use executive powers. like scotus deciding it will review all legislation for unconstitutionality and rewrite parts it doesn't agree with because cases take too long to get to them, if at all
where is the voice at the beginning from
It's Justice Scalia reading from the bench at the opinion announcement. Here's the link to the full audio: www.oyez.org/cases/1987/87-1279
@@TheFederalistSociety Scalia was garbage as we're his rulings. A true POS when it came to actual innocence.
the flaw in ointment of Scalia's dissent is that the current court seems incapable of judging cases based on any form of methodology, but now renders decisions based solely on ideology.
It’s not getting any better. Well said
All though the past couple weeks seem to be a glimmer of hope….I hope your comment wasn’t intent on casting shade on the recent decisions. If so then you may wanna read your comment a hundred times over and then read the constitution a hundred times over.
@@danielfioretti5049 no need to cast shade on recent decisions--they are politically shady enough on their own.... I truly miss and respect the wisdom and balance of Justice Scalia, even though I don't always agree with his decisons.
You know people make this claim because a case has political overtones....but political overtones is far different than actually purely political. Many people who are for abortion for example have never read a SCOTUS decision much less cared to consider the legal reasoning.
i need the instrumental
Now with Muller ...it become clear...how abusive it can be
@Liberty AboveAllElse Pls share. 2cent for your mind
Whitewater too. It’s all crap
@Liberty AboveAllElse.... and the idiot Journalist ask.... which train..
lol... you saw the journalists that asked Kelly..5x...". which river....". ha ha..
thrown under the bus...... mnbc wld ask which bus..?
chicken cross the road..... cnn wld asked which road...?
ha ha
Exactly!
Where can i find his full dissent?
Anyone know how to find the audio at the beginning?
whenever your argument basically comes down to claiming the founding fathers "didn't think about ____ one way or the other," that they simply lacked the foresight to even contemplate what would happen in ____ scenario, you basically know you're full of it. especially when ____ scenario is not some uniquely unforeseeable circumstance, when it doesn't involve advanced technology or radical social change, but is something that easily could have happened during the founding generation. this guy at 5:27 is seriously trying to argue that the founding fathers didn't put any thought into how impeachment would work out in practice? I mean, is that even remotely reasonable?
one of the fundamental preoccupations of the Constitution, the Federalist, etc., was to prevent another Julius Caesar from arising. that's the central purpose of the separation of powers. and you mean to tell me the founding fathers didn't bother entertaining what would happen in their new form of government when the Senate voted to kick Julius Caesar out of his dictatorship? they didn't even bother thinking about the real-world application of their most central preoccupation?
sorry, but no. that's just utter BS. the only reason anyone would say something like that is to excuse disagreeing with the conclusion the founding generation actually arrived at. you know and I know the founding generation contemplated exactly this question and came up with an answer. your problem is you don't like that answer. so now you're going to argue that answer wasn't well-founded, it wasn't the result of serious thought, it may not even have been a forceful prescription, so we _ought_ to overrule it.
as Scalia so often said, if you think we _ought_ to do something we're not doing, pass a law. persuade your neighbors to change the law. don't gaslight me that the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly says so you can change the law without having to persuade anyone of the merits of your point of view.
What's the name of the song playing in the background?
Scalia was famous for reminding people that finding "right and wrong" in a case is not the job of a Supreme Court Judge. Applying the law as *required by the US Constitution should be the only persuit of the SCOTUS even if the outcome appears to be terribly unfair to one of the parties before them. .
His legal philosophy was both brilliant in its simplicity and humble in its effect.
as a practicing attorney of 30 plus years, all I can say is "Wow".
Yet another brilliant piece of Reagan's brilliant legacy...the nomination of Scalia.
Reagan also appointed pro-choice Sandra Day O'Connor based on identity politics - soley because she would be the first woman on the court.
One of the perhaps fatal assumptions in the Constitution is that the Administrative branch, which is the only one of the three branches to have a national police force and military to enforce their positions, will bow to the laws passed by Congress and the legal rulings of the SCOTUS.🤔
Despite what Richard Pildes of NYU Law School says here, Scalia's dissent is now widely supported on _both_ sides. Even leftist Linda Greenhouse of the NYT wrote about that in 1999, saying that Scalia was prescient in his opinion a decade earlier.
RIP Justice Scalia.
Scalia died of a heart attack, how morbidly obese was Scalia?
@@abcdefghijklmno7384 He was on the heavier side but certainly not morbidly obese.
This comes off as a commericial for the supreme court and Scalia. Time will tell if the ruling is good enough for now or if congress will pass a better law.
Never ending investigations.....who would ever imagine that once this was upheld.
Terrible president. Not likely to get removed politics a form of infection.
Who did the artwork on the thumbnail?
Lol - Richard Pildes trying repeatedly and rather fruitlessly to prevent people from praising Scalia TOO much.
You do know that Pildes probably gave one interview that the editors of this video cut in pieces that are shown mixed with the other interviews, don't you? If you wanted to judge Pildes, you would need to watch the whole original material and, from there, decide if he's repetitious and fruitless.
@@Achill101 Speculation.
His whiny unsupported criticism....just because he was right about some parts and I am not smart enough to understand the rest doesn't mean he was right about everything. Wimpy E. Coyote.
@@Achill101 lol says you woke-ist woke. lol
Looking at how this played put during trump/ russia, Scalia was right. I remember people saying that trump couldve fired mueller or something (right). If he did, congress and the senate wouldve almost certainly gone ahead with removing the president. It was pretty much acknowledged that trump was gonna get fierce political backlash for removing mueller
with one major caveat.
there is a difference between "independent counsel"...and "special councel". Scalia never had the opportunity to rule on what replaced the independent counsel that converted to "special councel".
Some of the arguments are similar...but given the special counsel is fundamentally and mechanically different than the independent counsel and how it is formed and from what basis in constitutional powers (or limits)...we cannot really find his dissent in olsen to have clear application into matters of the special counsel or of that involving the investigation of President Trump...which I WILL REMIND< was based on a manufactured FRAUD run by both members of congress, clinton, AND THE DOJ! Scalia, had he been alive to rule on the many lawsuits involving russia russia russia fraud would have very likely demanded to see fisa court records...and he would have determined AS THE DOJ CONCEALED FOR 4 YEARS that it was manufactured bullshit. His clue would have been the absence of any credible wood's files AND the unlawful surveillance order to people in "his orbit" up to and including the CIA asset, carter page who was PLANTED in his wheelhouse, given that the DOJ AND CONGRESS HAD ALREADY BANNED THE "about clause" of the surveillance powers (17 of 702). Scalia would have shredded most of every single lawsuit and challenge made by the DOJ.
If you want to know the truth...stop watching tv. You were conned by the FBI/DOJ/DOD/CIA and the media was complicit in manufacturing false allegations of "collusion" and narratives involving criminal conspiracy.
scalia was no fool and he could not be compromised and blackmailed from prior corrupt acts. That is not true with a majority of the jurist during impeacment. these are facts...undisputed. Most Americans have the heads so far up their asses over orange man bad and mean tweets, they were and continue to be the blissful idiots who refused to even notice that unelected officials were abusing the most dangerous powers given by congress.
not one single criminal in this conspiracy has experienced justice.
Barr was the bondo...Durham was and is the spray paint.
Who's the narrator in this video reading Justice Scalia's dissent?
Simplicity is a sign of sophistication. A simple straightforward methodology is the best way to impartially inform your decision. Good job J Scalia.
If a state law says "grandchildren inherit from their grandparents," and a particular grandchild kills his grandparents, would he inherit? Give me a simple answer.
Who is the artist that did the watercolors?
Austin Blasingame: www.austinblasingame.com/
this video didn't explain what the opinion is or what it means in layman's terms. all I saw was a bunch of talking-heads gushing over Scalia and his dissent but not really explaining what it is. how about an analogy or examples of Scalia's dissent mean in real cases.
Because of this decision Congress can appoint a special prosecutor who works independent of the Department of Justice if Congress wants to investigate the President or someone in the Executive branch.
Scalia said that the President should have full control over the DOJ which would including all federal law enforcement officials, investigators and prosecutors. Scalia says that Congress does have power to remove the President through impeachment if Congress feels that the President is keeping the DOJ from doing their job against the President or other executive officials. So Scalia believes that Congress does not need the unconstitutional power of appointing a special prosecutor.
Both the President and the Supreme Court justices can be removed from office through impeachment by Congress so through impeachment Congress has a check on the highest powers in the executive and judicial branches.
@@SportsOnTheSide ,thank you for the explanation.
He might be the first justice ever, to act like a lawyer and not an activist.
His legal philosophy was both brilliant in its simplicity and humble in its effect.
That guy looks like he aged 5 yrs in 30 yrs
these videos are amazing
I'm not a lawyer or a politician, just a guy who's studied the Constitution on my own according to the words of the men who wrote it and got it ratified, including the writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights. So, this is how I understand this case, Justice Scalia's opinion and the words of those who oppose it...
I've watched politics and studied politicians to know how their words and actions affect We, the People...
Then what they say about the results. For instance, the highest poverty and crime rates are ALWAYS in cities and states under Democratic control. In this case, the office of an Independent Counsel or Special Prosecutor was deemed beyond the President's power to interfere or fire. Why was this set up?
Just as Congress alone has the authority to create laws, yet Progressives set up the alphabet soup Bureaucracies to create regulations and laws without politicians having to answer for said regulations and laws, hence oppressing We, the People by proxy without losing the possibility of losing reelection...
The office of an Independent Counsel or Special Prosecutor has never been used for any reason but to bring down a President or those around him, not in my 50+ years of observing. Thus, the office is set up for he sole purpose of doing CONGRESS' JOB of investigation, and, again, for the sole purpose of protecting politicians from losing their reelection bids.
It's a theater to sway people from one party to the other, no matter which party is using it...
Justice Scalia was right, it's unconstitutional. Those who say otherwise don't want to lose the unconstitutional power it gives them and those with whom they agree.
The state with the highest crime rate is Alaska. The next is New Mexico. The third is Tennessee. Crime is not a partisan issue, where “democrats” allow more crime than “republicans.” That’s a tired talking point that’s been run up since the 80s. That said, I sincerely don’t understand the connection between democratic “crime rates” and the special counsel. Whatever.
Progressives wanting to make bureacracies in order to skirt around congressional authority? All of the progressive ideas I’ve seen have been rooted in legislative ideas. The “Green New Deal”, Roe v. Wade being legislated, increasing the minimum wage, Medicare for All, these are all things theyre proposing for Congress in order to be legislated. Further, people DO hold people accountable for creating regulations. That was a whole reason why Democrats lost the House and Senate and why Trump ran on cutting regulations. I’d also like to remind you that it was a Republican that created the Environmental Protection Agency.
Congress has been TRYING to do it’s job. The current administration has simply been ignoring subpoenas and dismissing all watchdogs. That’s the entire idea of this case and the law in question, when an executive branch uses it’s power to simply refuse Congressional checks there still needs to be a way to hold the executive branch accountable.
To me, it sounds like you take a lot of talking points from Tucker Carlson, but you like to think of yourself as the pragmatic conservative. Scalia was the lone dissent of eight other justices, justices who have studied the law for decades. Just because his defense was powerful does not mean it was right. I hope you keep studying that Constitution, though.
@@DeliriousKnife Tucker Carlson wasn't out of high school when I started seeing through Progressives...
Baltimore.
Chicago.
New Orleans.
Washington DC.
Detroit.
New York.
The crime rates are high.
The use of guns for crimes are ridiculous.
The ratio of minorities to whites arrested and convicted of crime is everything the race baiters need to cry out against racism...
All generational Progressive strongholds, magnificent examples of what corruption and treasonous government can do to the People and still get elected by blaming other people for their crimes.
@@DeliriousKnife BTW, I said "Progressive", not "Democrat". There's Progressives on both sides of the aisle. Just as Barack Obama said, After 3/11, George W. Bush used the fear that gripped this nation to establish our own Gestapo, The Department of Homeland Security AND pass the Patriot Act. Warrantless wiretaps? Suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of terrorism?
The Republican Party may not be as riddled with Progressives as the Democrat Party is, but EVERY Progressive uses the means and methods that they believe will bring about their Utopian (read: Socialist) dreams in this nation. That's why Dems are called Communists and 'Pubs are called Fascists. Bot Communism and Fascism are Socialist, only differing on whether business should be privately or publicly owned. If you haven't figured out that both parties are actually gaming out how they're going to work We, the People, that all we're seeing is theater, carefully scripted and acted out to get the footsoldiers of each party to do their bidding...
Are you actually paying attention?
Point of Order: The Impeachment clauses that were stated as being Article 2, Section 2 clause 6 and 7 are actually Article 1 Section 2 clauses 6 and 7
After the November 2022 elections, we may anticipate that this issue will resonate even further. What I think we have seen in the last two years is the Congress retrieving some of the powers it ceded to the Executive Branch for many decades -- and that is a good thing.
Ceded??
Funny--when I attended law school, they didn't offer ditzy music to enhance the lectures!
When I was in law school, I wouldn't have noticed and wouldn't have cared wether or not there was ditzy music as long as I found the legal issue being addressed to be interesting.
Who cares, meaningless nitpicking.
I had to play my own, not the same.
its interesting how 90% of Pildes comments are not based on any reasoning - just raw unsupported opinion.
At 7:03 he flat out lies.
Im indeed a Massive Supporter and fan of Antonin Scalia. He was a Intellectual Colossus!!!
But it's very insightful to read Prof Jonathan Turley's opinion on the same Matter. Turley is like Scalia a Constitutionalist and Madisonian Scholar although they are "politically" on opposite sides of the spectrum. Furthermore it's interesting to note that although Scalia and Turley are essential on opposite "sides" they do find the middle ground.
In my view, and note that I'm Conservative, Jonathan Turley's immense talent is not being fully utilised.
The framers were brilliant and knew the only way to fairly prosecute a President would be to force a super majority vote by the Congress. Ridiculous how much we've tossed this aside.
Ted Olson passed away today. RIP Ted, you were a fantastic American.
For those unaware, Ted's wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. They were on the phone with each other until the very end.
God bless, Ted. Thank you for helping with The Federalist Society and leaving a lasting legacy.
Thank you🙏 for your support.
That a law could be abused, including for partisan purposes, is not sufficient reason for the Court to strike it down. Many laws could be abused in practice; yet is the problem there in the law itself, or in its application in a given, particular instance? I can think of several laws that could be abused. There is no requirement that laws be free from any possible abuse in their execution in order to be deemed constitutional. What kind of abuse, with what implications for the separation of powers or other constitutional provisions? Yes, those are the key questions that must matter here. But it's an error to think broadly that only the possible abuse or misuse of a law in its application is enough on its own to strike a law down. In any case, the Attorney General had some statutory authority to dismiss the Independent Counsel prosecutor under the Ethics in Government Act, with cause described there, and the AG is under the President's authority; thus, it's difficult to see how Executive Power was unduly compromised. Scalia was admirably passionate but mistaken here; Olson is incorrect to assert that there is a legal consensus that Scalia was right. Jurists are divided.
1. It _”is incorrect to assert that there is a legal consensus that Scalia was right”_ Really? How many articles can you find praising Morrison? How many disparaging it? Justice Kagen, herself the antithesis to Scalia, even said his opinion was “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.” Of course Congress eventually realized the error of their ways and refused to re-authorize the Ethics in Government Act, opting instead for a statutory scheme completely within the permissible limits of Scalia’s dissent.
2. . _it's difficult to see how Executive Power was unduly compromised_
Unduly compromised?? The Constitution provides that the Chief Executive’s role not be compromised AT ALL. This was Scalia’s entire point.
3. _That a law could be abused, including for partisan purposes, is not sufficient reason for the Court to strike it down_ You devote the majority of your comment to the potential abuse argument. Do you really think Scalia’s basis for striking down the act was because it “could be abused”? It was not. His rational was simple and pure. The Act was contrary to Art II of the Constitution. Really not complicated.
4. "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in _a President of the United States_ Art. II, § 1, cl. 1 (emphasis Scalia’s).
@@wernerfoerster3666 I wonder if you understand that both the office of the Attorney General and the Justice Department itself were created by *acts of Congress*. Legislation. Subsequent legislation then defined further their scopes of powers specifically. This issue is no different, my friend. It's no surprise that Morrison v. Olson was overwhelmingly agreed with only one emotional nutcase against it. The reason why there are articles defending his dissent has nothing to do with constitutional reasoning; it's simply an odd fetish issue for far-right ideologues who do not understand the role of Congress in structuring the federal government, and their poor understanding is surprising, awkward and shameful. I have no doubt that many of the spineless sycophants who defend his bizarre dissent would fellate Scalia if given the chance.
@@briandavid6879
1. FYI: Your argument loses credibility right off the bat when you name-call and employ vulgarities as to one of the most brilliant jurists of all time. It shows you are too emotionally invested and have abandoned all logic and reason. A common malady of today's woke left.
2. I'll bet you think the DOJ is "independent" of the President too.
3. Congress is merely the funding mechanism. It appears that you are saying that since Congress appropriates funds to the executive branch, that they somehow derive some sort of decision making or substantive power over it as a result. Of course, that's nonsense. "Shameful" using your vernacular. Congressional "oversight" regarding how appropriated money is spent, IS NOT substantive authority. You seem not to understand this concept.
4. You need to read up on the THREE branches of government - their respective lanes and SEPARATION of powers in general. Maybe start by re-reading my original comment and reference to the Constitution.
@@wernerfoerster3666 Hello, nitz. I think I’d rather die than be ‘woke’; it’s a ridiculous term and ideal, to me. Look, you can remove my colourful language and yet my argument remains; no need to repeat it. Your nostalgia for Nixon and Scalia is blinding you to the obvious. It’s always been interesting to me how the right in US gladly pounced on Clinton with Ken Starr for his indiscretion, using exactly this legislation just before it sunset, despite everything you’re throwing out here… I mean you really do want it both ways; you’re confused and hypocritical. Scalia was an ideologue and uber-religious buffoon who did not allow himself to see the key role that Congress plays in structuring the federal government. That’s fact. More mistaken would be a tough thing to reach. I’m confident that in the future we’ll see reason restored. It’s very satisfying to me that he was all alone in that emotional, mistaken corner.
@@briandavid6879
1. Okay, you don't subscribe to the American founding principles of separation of power between the 3 branches of government. Got it. I would suggest you propose a constitutional amendment providing for a 4th branch - that of Independent Counsel.
2. You obfuscate the original issue with many tangents. To re-center you: POTUS, (VIA HIS VARIOUSTHREE LETTER AGENCIES) HAS EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE OVER ENFORCING FEDERAL LAWS (PROSECUTIONS). PERIOD. THERE IS NO SHARING OF THIS POWER WITH CONGRESS.
2a. If you think POTUS is corrupt then the Constitution provides for this as well. Removal. Like Scalia - brilliant in its simplicity.
3. I never said the Independent Counsel statute was correct visa vie Ken Star. Yes, it took the Repubs' and Starr to shake the Dems out of their attempted hypocrisy to demonstrate that a prosecutor who was not under the direct and total control of the Chief Executive is contrary to Art 2. That's why they agreed to let the IC statute die on the vine.
4. The problem with folks like you is that you are results oriented. You stomp your foot if you don't get the outcome you desire. The law doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way. The Constitutional text says what it says (or doesn't say). Scalia was clear on this ... rendering many opinions which were favorable to criminals ... certainly not furthering conservatism.
We don't need an independent council, we need congress to do its job when called upon. The same with all the regulatory agencies. The EPA should only regulate laws the congress passes not create laws themselves.
You may have noticed that Congress hasn't done its job for at least the last 105 years. And they _won't_ do their job until We The People do _our_ job, which is vote them out for not doing their job. If anything the Supreme Court over the last century has made it progressively easier for Congress to abdicate its responsibility for making law and put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats populating the Executive Branch -- and SCOTUS has done that largely through evolutionist judicial philosophy. Scalia spent his entire tenure trying to pull the Court back to the textualist philosophy that was largely followed in the Judiciary before evolutionist judges began to permeate every level of the court system.
The system is failing for too many people. Expect less from your government and even less in the future.
The court lacks discipline. They don't do their duty as much as what they want. It happens all over the bench nation wide. Made me quit law.
"But this wolf comes as a wolf". I honestly found law boring until I left Ireland for the U.S & later joined Boston PD. I discovered Scalia & found his writing fascinating, interesting, funny & easy to understand. Later as a rancher in OK, I found the audio tapes from SCOTUS & ate them up. I too am Catholic with 9 children. And one of the boys joined the clergy & is now a Benedictine brother. R.I.P Justice Antonin Scalia.🔥🙏📿⛪😇👑💙👮♂️
Irish cops are arrogant bigots. Always have been.
Born in Ireland, emigrated and became a cop in Boston, and THEN you went on to be a rancher in Oklahoma? I hope you know how to tell a story because brother, whether you know it or not, you’ve got stories to tell!!
The guy with the glasses, who is so desperately trying not to admit Scalia is right, is, in my view, what's wrong with so many lawyers and law schools today. He's obviously not an originalist when it comes to the Constitution. He believes that the courts can add, seemingly at will, whatever they want to the Constitution. This is just a flat-out wrong way to think. He is saying, in his own hypocritical way, that the President shouldn't have certain powers bc it can be viewed as totalitarian. Yet, he's allowing an independent prosecutor dictatorial powers to go after the executive by allowing them to basically have another executive branch under the already existing executive branch. There's already a clear process in the Constitution in dealing with these types of issues.
Needless to say, I agree completely with Scalia. He left us far too soon (in a mysterious way, I might add).
to video editor: music is too loud.
11:44 - The 757 did not hit the E-Ring. 18 ft. diameter holes through each office wall of both the ONI and Pentagon Budget Analyst Office, clean through to the center of the Pentagon. It was a bunker buster missile.
After 70+ years of watching I conclude that both politicians and our legal system have very little regard for the citizenry.
Politicians, many of whom are complete idiots make law after law and are nothing but reactionaries.
Our courts and legal system , are charged with enforcing the resulting reactionary B.S
There is nothing about our system that prevents crime or abuse of the citizenry by politicians, disenchanted cops or "activist" courts.
The entire legislative and legal process is ridiculously expensive and takes so long that the results are largely irrelevant.
Nixon was a crook but neither the courts or politicians dealt with him.
And you guys are still arguing about it today.
I think Scalia was a smart buy, but his only job was to nitpick decisions make in lower courts.
.
5:21 how carefully i answer a hypothetical question from my girlfriend
I think Justice Kalia was most eloquent when he said that the section of the voting rights act that the court struck down were “racial entitlement.“ And he was correct to say that Congress and more specifically the Senate when it re-authorized every section of the voting rights act in 2006 on unanimous vote was too concerned about being portrayed as racist, so since the legislative branch was too afraid to take an unpopular position justice, Celia took it upon himself to make sure that these sections were deemed unconstitutional. The wet and wisdom of justice Celia lives on today in the three justices appointed by President Trump. It’s just a shame that they don’t have such colorful language to describe such burdens on society.
The music is extremely distracting
RS. Canada
Terrific show…I still say “they” slipped him with the wrong pill. Since then, the heavens have been falling & gradually increasing.
The one clown confuses elegant and right with "simple" , and simple as being negative. Just is a whiny lesser mind.
Yes it's like calling the principle of least action in physics simple despite all it can produce.
2:50 oh hey it's Justice Gorsuch's mom
I watched this video inorder to understand the problems of significant social dissent , i consider an argument based on separation of powers
Pildes from NYU is unbearable to listen to in this. He draws out his words and pauses for dramatic effect, but still can't hide his condescension for Scalia with his backhanded faint praise ("brilliant...but also simple analysis"). This type of man is like nails across a chalkboard.
So just because he was right doesn’t mean he was right, got it!
It amazes me the complicity that can be added to an already complex document, where the thought process of the founding fathers was simple, yet, needed to be written in such form where the simple thought doesn’t get contaminated. Justice Scalia was right and let me add, he was also right in simplifying the understanding of the constitution because the constitution, in concept, is simple. It was made to be better than the British non existen constitution by which, neither, the people or the government had more power over the other. May be, we need to stop complicating crap by scholar language and take the simplicity of it.
Women can't handle that our founding fathers never intended women to be in politics "all MEN are created equal" so you have this academic cover up
@@thestation4768 But they intended for the constitution to be a living document and amendable, so when the 19th amendment came around it’s exactly what the founders wanted :)
I did understood the case and understood why he dissented. I however don’t understand why “legal scholars” now believe he was right?
1. Most legal journals and articles have sided with Scalia over the years.
2. Congress refused to re-enact the statute after 15 year due at least in part to Scalia's rationale
3. Justice Kagen, herself the antithesis to Scalia, even said his opinion was “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.”
4. A simple and elementary reading of the constitution reveals Scalia was correct.
He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. Yes and he supports the disarming of millions of non vilolent felons.
The Greatest Supreme Court Justice in My Lifetime!!!
Richard H. Pildes is a law professor at the New York University School of Law...
Well that tells you everything, doesn't it?
The founding fathers gave us the articles of impeachment, therefore we DO NOT need additional procedures. By matter of CONVICTION alone, does the Congress have authority to impeach a President WITHOUT an investigation so to say otherwise, that an investigation is needed BEFORE impeachment ignores precedent.
Excellent presentation.
"All executive authority is invested in the office of the presidency"
Left unmentioned is Scalia's incredible _courage._ He'd been on the Court less than two years when he issued his dissent, standing up against the rest of the Court. Most people, having been around for such a short period, would have just gone along to get along. Scalia gets tremendous credit just for guts alone.
I think you're wrong. They are all so experienced, even a junior member of the Court is at the very top of their profession and has years and years of experience. The experience, plus the environment fostered by the other Justices, I don't think there is any pressure from any of them to go with the flow instead of making your own honest conclusions. So I think courage is the wrong word, it's just impressive to be correct when you're the lone dissenter.
@@yonatanben-chaim9747
I hear you, but I think you're being unrealistic. Any time someone ascends to a highly exclusive club of the absolutely top, most highly talented group of experts, there has got to be an intimidation factor should it come to standing alone in opposition. I refer not only to the SCOTUS, but to any group in rarified air. Could be a world leader among Allies, or a head coach or owner of a major league team. When you're the new guy in town, and literally everyone else thinks you're wrong, that would normally be quite intimidating. Far easier to just quietly go along.
Perhaps there is a clearly constitutional way to accomplish essentially the same thing as appointment of an IG.
Congress could set out jurisdictional authority for suits involving subject matter of "the highest executive positions" in a statute for the Supreme Court such that an aggrieved party could file a lawsuit seeking appointment of a Special Master much like the court does for some disputes between States.
Justice Scalia RIP
Beautiful excerpt.