Next Show: ...loading...

Scalia: A Study in Hypocrisy

February 14, 2016

Listen to Audio Here
The problem with Scalia is NOT that he’s an originalist.
The problem with Scalia is he’s a hypocrite.
Which 60 Minutes‘ recent puff piece did little to unearth.
But I did. As a student at Yale Law School, I put Scalia in his place…twice.
I challenged him on his own terms as a pure textualist.
And proved to him — in the face of hundreds of law students who laughed and taunted him for his failure to answer my challenge — that he is NOT an originalist.
In today’s show, I share my personal “smack-down” of Scalia, as I comment on the 60 Minutes interview.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Time, alone, heals nothing May 14, 2008 10:03 am

    Hypocrites tend to extrapolate with old age–sometimes onto strange tangents that elude sanity

  • Robt May 13, 2008 3:14 am

    It is possible Scalia would try brush it off as such. As such, I mean use his position as SCJ as the pillar of knowledge and imply respect from one that questios him. Respect he sometimes doesn’t accrue to others from his pedestal.
    Yet if the Ricin (chemical weapons) doesn’t entice a reponse worthy of the question. Then Perhaps his vast experience and knowledge would discern the ownership of the Bazooka, L.A.W.S. rockets, most hand held surface to air/ surface to surface missiles. Mortors, Dynamite, claymore mines. Well you see my direction.
    By the way, On the religious freedom. You mentioned the S.C. case of Native American use of Peyote in their native culture and religious ceremonies.
    Does Govt have the right to protect society from religious human sacrifices? Religious suicides?
    And do those Govt protective water run down stream to native Americans use of what Govt considers a harmful narcotic?
    While their are well qualified suited for the Supreme Court. There is no farmer or teacher that is less. Although wealth suspect of who is held up for Supreme Court service. It is the American people that the Supreme Court Justices depend of their earnings. As a truck driver relies on his company for his wages.
    Cynical I am of supremes that honor the wealthy that raise them for their duty and then own the propriety of espousing from thier podium, those of less afluence simply need to work hard and be honest. To stop their illegal lazy dispositions.
    You say the 9th Amendment is your favorite. My favorite is not an amendment but the Declaration of independence.
    So Mark, consider a show on all the Supremes one by one as a make up and their influences of law, ideology, their personal etching of the courts rulings. How they got their. What promise percieved as nomonee vs once they were confirmed.
    Obviously I enjoyed this show

  • Mark Levine May 12, 2008 9:30 am

    That particular question was not posed by me but by someone else. I only got to question Scalia twice (on the Ninth Amendment and on Religious Freedom (Female Catholic Priests)). That was someone else’s question.
    But I suspect Scalia might say that nerve agents and ricin are not “arms.”

  • Robt May 12, 2008 2:31 am

    In your posed question to Scalia over “right to bear arms”.
    In reply to Scalia’s retort to you of, “Bear arms meaning to be able to pick up and bear (carry)”. In regards to your, ” ownership of a nuclear weapon”.
    If only you came back with, “if not nuclear weapon(s) because of their heft and size. What of owning cannisters of Nerve agents and ricin (chemical weapons)?
    Could Scalia have given you the Heft and size of weapon arguement? I think not……

  • Robt May 2, 2008 1:54 pm

    It would be interesting to hear you interview another constitutional type and go through the present Supreme Court. Justice by justice.
    Evaluate some of their rulings. Rate their performance(s).
    Delve into what some call is activist/partisan interpretations.
    Reflecting on their law endeavors prior to supreme court, How the presented themselves as the nominee to be confirmed and how they changed after confirmation….
    Some think the Justices have become to elite and do not understand results and effects on their rulings that give no consideration to average Americans they no longer seem to even place near their hearts. How do the Justices even relate to everyday Americans?
    Scalia has hunting trips with the Vice President. Has Scalia ever had lunch with an average America since becoming a S.C. Justice?
    Does he have to as so he can relate and be in touch somehow?
    Mark your always very interesting in this arena.