been saying throughout this broadcast, the world is watching. people are praying. our thoughts and prayers are with the folks here. of course, we're not going to leave until we deem it's necessary. we want to continue to cover this important story. this is the largest mass shooting in u.s. history. it may be a black eye for this community. they may feel that at this moemt. but not really. we love you guys here and we are praying for you. and, again, we are going to be here until we decide that this story no longer warnts that. by, anyway, i'll see you back here an hour from here at 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight, inside the supreme circuit court, a rare and exclusive interview with the longest serving justice. >> you have to read the federalist papers. i don't think anybody in the current congress could write even one of those numbers.

>> colorful, controversial and powerful. he has changed a nation. and now what you've got are the super fangs funded by elections. and that cannot be what the founding fathers suggested. >> tonight, justice skelea on the right to choose. >> that was the theory used in rowe versus wade. >> the highest court in the land where the issues who died america are decided. this is "piers morgan tonight. . >> good evening, it isn't often a supreme court justice invites a journalist to come and sit down with him. i'm here to interview the longest serving justice. they just rolled on and are pending.

that still left a lot of ground to cover. his thoughts on campaign finance and politics. and his colleagues, it's all on the table tonight on my exclusive interview. the new book, "reading law: the interpretation of legal texts." justice skelea, welcome. ron, welcome to you, too. the book is very much a template for the way that you conducted your legal life. you are a man that believes fundamentally that the law in america should be based rigidly on the letter of the constitution. that's what you believe? fundamental? >> yes, give or take a little. rigidly, i would not say. but it should be based on the text of the constitution reasonably interpreted. >> people who criticize you for this say a lot of the

constitution was phrased in a vague way. that they visualized that things may change which may put a different impression on a particular piece of text. >> why are you not prepared to say that remains with the times? >> well, i do respect that with respect to the vague terms such as equal protection of the laws, due process of law. crucial and unusual punishments. i clearly accept that those things is have to apply to things that did not exist in the past. as to the phenomena that existed, their meaning then is the same as their meaning now. for example, the death penalty. some of my colleagues who are not textualists or not origin originalis originalists, at least, believe that it's somehow up to the

court to decide whether the death penalty remains constitutional or not. that's not a question for me. it's absolutely clear that whatever cruel and unusual punish pts may mean with regard to future things such as death by injection or the electric chair, it's clear that the death penalty in and of itself is not considered cruel and unusual punishmented. >> everyone when you began -- you're the longest-serving supreme court justice. when you began, the big majority, we've been in favor of the death penalty. that is beginning to change. you'll see it going out of fashion. a large number of people on death row didn't commit their crimes. how do you continue to be so

pro-something which is so obviously flawed. >> i don't insist that there be a death penalty. all that i insist upon is that the american people never prescribe the death penalty. if you don't like the death penalty, fine. you're quite wrong that it's a majority. it's a small minority of the states that have abolished it. i'm not pro death penalty. i'm just the anti-the notion that it is not a matter of democratic choice. the american people never ratified a position which they understood abolished. >> and all we have to do is amend the constitution. it could be amended. it is chapgble, but it's

changeable by process, not by asking the judiciary to make up something that is not there. >> right. but for example, on the crewel and unusual, i was fascinated by your interview. i think it was for 60 minutes when you said in your eyes, torture wasn't punishment. and i thought hang on a second. it clearly can be a punishment. if you're a person and you've been picked up off of a battlefield but you were genuinely innocent and you get tortured rksz that becomes a punishment. >> i don't think the constitution addresses torture. it addresses punishments. >> whablt if you're a nent

person being water boarded. ? >> i'm not for it. >> it's not the problem with the oij originalism. >> it's a problem. what does the constitution mean by cruel and unusual punishments. >> snt it down to the supreme court to give a more modern interpretation of the spirit of what that means to adapt it to modern times? >> that's lovely. >> why don't you think it is? >> look. the background principle of all of this is democracy. a self governing people who decide the laws that will be aplayed to them, there are exceptions to that. you cannot read them as the current court desoirs to read

them thereby depriving americans of legitimate choices that the american people have never decided to take away from them. if you are sentenced to torture for a crime, yes, that is a cruel punishment. but the mere fact that somebody is tortured is unlawful, but the constitution happens not to address it just as it does not address a lot of other horrible things. >> what did you argue most with the justice about? he's one of the world's great arguers. i feel like we're just warming up here. >> he's an intellectual giant. and we had no debates in this book. in the first book, we had four debates where we had a pro and con. in this particular book, we had none. the biggest issue but he

persuaded me not to, was whether a murderer can inherit. can a son, for example, murder his parents and move up his inheritance and still take whatever the property is from his parents if the statue doesn't say anything about it. and we all feel that that's wrong. and i was first arguing that there should be an equitable dpepgs and we absolutely have to prevent a murder from happening. what did you say? >> i said if you're going to be serious, if the statute does not make an exception, it does not make an exception. and those states amended their statutes. take a short break. when we come back, i want to ask you why you think burning the american flag should be allowed. even though you'd throw them all in jail. i don't spend money on gasoline. i don't have to use gas. i am probably going to the gas station about once a month. drive around town all the time doing errands

and never ever have to fill up gas in the city. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. last time i was at a gas station was about...i would say... two months ago. the last time i went to the gas station must have been about three months ago. i go to the gas station such a small amount that i forget how to put gas in my car. ♪ are choosing advil®. here's one story. i'm keith baraka and i'm a fire fighter. it's an honor to be a fire fighter. my job involves life or death situations and it's very physically demanding. if i'm sore, i have a headache, i'm not at my best. advil® is my go to. it's my number one pain reliever. advil® just works for me. [ male announcer ] make the switch. take action. take advil®. and if pain keeps you up, sleep better with advil pm®.

legalzoom has an easy and affordable option. you get quality services on your terms, with total customer support, backed by a 100% satisfaction guarantee. so go to legalzoom.com today and see for yourself. wanted to provide better employee benefits while balancing the company's bottom line, their very first word was... [ to the tune of "lullaby and good night" ] ♪ af-lac ♪ aflac [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. [ yawning sound ] [ slap! ] [ slap! slap! slap! slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums.

calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums use the points we earn with our citi thankyou card for a relaxing vacation. ♪ sometimes, we go for a ride in the park. maybe do a little sightseeing. or, get some fresh air. but this summer, we used our thank youpoints to just hang out with a few friends in london. [ male announcer ] the citi thankyou visa card. redeem the points you've earned to travel with no restrictions. rewarding you, every step of the way. [ wife ] a beached whale! lawn clippings! a mattress. a sausage link. mermaid. honey!? driftwood. come on, you gotta help us out here a little. [ male announcer ] febreze eliminates odors and leaves carpets fresh. ♪

[ male announcer ] febreze. eliminates odors and leaves carpets fresh. ♪ scalia. why you believe that people who burn the flag in america should be allowed to do so? and yet you personally, if you had the chance, would send them all to jail. >> yeah, if i were king, i would not let people go about burning the american flag. however, we have a first

amendment which says the right of free speech shall not be abridged. and it is addressed, in particular, to speech. burning the flag is a form of expression. speech doesn't just mean writen words or oral words. >> if you're not sure, in the end, no one knows the constitution better than you do. doesn't it come down to your personal interpretation. if it isn't clear cut, you would have the make an opinion, don't you? >> don't forget, this person has to be convicted by a jury of 12 people who unanimously have to

find that he was inciting to riot. so it's not all up to me. ultimately, the right of jury trial is the protection. >> don't you think this example of speech and a fair reading is including symbolic speech. there's a lot of case law, but it's a good example of why we think strict construction is a bad y. a lot of people think justice scalia is a strict constructionist. >> what does that mean? >> well, it really means a narrow reading. a crabbed reading of statutory words. it's a kind of literalism. we like a fair reading of the sta chut, a fair reading of the words and, in this case, speech. >> let's turn to political fund

raising, which, at the moment, under your interpretation of the constitution, you should be allowed to raise money for a political party. the problem, as i see it, and many critics see it, is that it has no limitation. you have billionaires effectively trying to buy elections. that cannot be what the founding fathering suggested. thomas jefferson did not sit there constructing something that was going to be abused in that way. >> i think thomas jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. that's what the first amendment is all about. so long as the people know where the speech is coming from. >> i'm talking about money. >> you can't separate money from speech that facilitates the speech. it's utterly impossible. can you tell newspapers that you

can only spend so much money? would they not say this is abridging my speech? >> but newspaper publishers aren't buying elections. the election of a president, as you know better than anybody else, you served under many of them, it is an incredibly important thing. >> newspapers endorse political candidates all of the time. they're almost in the business of doing that. and are you going to limit the amount of money they can spend on that? surely not guilty. . >> do you think, perhaps, should be? >> i think the framers thought the more speech, the better. now, you are entitled to know where the speech is coming from. you know, information as to who contributed what. that's something else. but whether they can speak is i think cleesh to me. >> is there any limts in your eyes? what are the limitations, to

you? >> i'm a textualist. and what the provision reads is congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. so they had in mind a particular freedom. what freedom of speech? the freedom of speech that was the right of englishmen at that time. >> what is the dimpbsz between speech and insurrection being unacceptable and speech as you're burning a flag. isn't that a form of insurrection. >> no, no, no. that's just saying we dislike the government. it's not urging people to take up arms against the government. that's something quite different. that's what i mean. >> what are the more complex things about you, which i think has been a size in equal measure. the case i would put to you, i think it's interesting where you

sent her to get something she gave evidence through closed circuit television. she didn't appear in court. and the abuser argued that this was unconstitution nal, he shouldn't have been allow today be face-to-face with his victim. what common sense says he has the right to be face-to-face with his young, girl victim? >> all legal rules do not come out with a perfect sense ooft answer in every case. the confrontation clause, in some situations, does seem to be

unnecessary. and there it is. you are entitled to be confronted with the wchbss against you. and simply watching the witnesses on a closed-circuit television. >> when you go home at night, do you have miss givings about it on a personal level? or are you always able to divorce that from, as you would say, your legal responsibility to uphold the lesser of the constitution. >> i sleep very well at night and doing what i'm supposed to do, which is to apply the constitution vmt i do not always like the result, very often. i think the result is terrible. but that's not my job. >> i'm not king. i'm not charged with making the

constitution coming out right all of the time. let's come back and talk about ro rowev. wade. stay in the moment sanya

focus lolo, focus let's do this i am from baltimore south carolina... bloomington, california... austin, texas... we are all here to represent the country we love this is for everyone back home it's go time. across america, we're all committed to team usa.

it doesn't look risky. i mean, phil, does this look risky to you? nancy? fred? no. well it is. in a high-risk area, there's a 1-in-4 chance homes like us will flood. i'm glad i got flood insurance. fred, you should look into it. i'm a risk-taker. [ female announcer ] only flood insurance covers floods. visit floodsmart.gov/risk to learn your risk.

one of my special guests, justice scalia and his co-author, brian garner. justice scalia, you had very strong opinions about this at the tierm. why were you so violently opposed to it? >> i wouldn't say violently. i'm a peaceful man. adamantly opposed. basically, because the theory that was expounded to impose

that decision was a theory that does not make any sense. and that is, namely, the theory of substantive due prosays. there's a clause in the constitution that says no person shall be proo deprived of life, or the pursuit of happiness without due process. >> my court in recent years has invented substantive due process. that was the theory in rowe versus wade. >> should abortion be illegal in your eyes? >> should abortion be illegal in

your eyes? >> i koent hadon't have public things like that. >> they didn't even allow women the right to vote and they gave women no rights. >> oh, come on. no rights? >> did they? >> of course. they were entitled to sdu process of law. you couldn't send them to prison without the same kind of a trial that a man woulds get. >> but, again, i want comes back to changing times: the founding fathers at that time would never consider a woman's right to keep a baby or have an abortion. >> i don't know why. why wouldn't it? they didn't have wives and daughters that they cared about? >> they did, but it was not an issue.

everybody believed that was the right thing to do. >> my view is regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the constitution sduz not say anything about it. it leaves it up to democratic choice. wade said no state can prohibit it. that is simply not in the constitution. it was one of those many things, most things in the world left to democratic choice. and the court does not do democracy a favor when it takes an issue out of democratic choice simply because it thinks it should not be there. >> how do you as a conservative catholic, how do you not bring your personal sense of what is right and wrong to that kind of decision?

clearly, as a conservative catholic, you're going to be fundamentally against abortion. >> just as the pro-choice people say the constitution prohibits the banning of abortion. the pro-life people say the opposite. they say that the constitution requires the abandoning of abortion because you're depriving someone of life without due process of law. i reject that argument just like i reject the other one. >> what has been your hardest decision, do you thk? >> my hardest? >> you don't want to know. >> i don't want to know. >> there is no correlation between the difficulty of a decision and its poshs. importance. some of the most insignificant cases have been the hardest. >> what has been the one --

>> it would probably be a patent case. >> all right, what has been, in your view, the most contentious. what's the one that most people ask you about? >> contentious? well, i guess the one that, you know, created the most waves of disagreement was bush versus gore. that comes up all of the time. and my usual response is get over it. >> get over the possible corruption of the american presidential system? >> justice scalia? my case didn't bring the case to the court. it was al gore. he is the one that wanted courts to discuss. when richard nixon thought that he had lost the election because of chicanery in chicago, he chose not to bring it in the

courts. but al gore wanted the questions to decide it. so the only question was whether the presidency would be decided by the florida supreme court. that fs the only question. and that was a hard one. >> no regrets? >> well, no regrets is clear. the thing would have wound up the same way any way. the press did extensive research of what would have happened if al gore done what he wantded to do. >> when people say about you that you're a fantastic justice and you ask the most questions -- >> i don't ask the most questions. >> apparently, you do. you are the kbie to ask the most questions. >> no, i used to be. >> we lost more than justice thomas, right? >> that's a low bar. >> i mean, is it just me or he's

a bit weird? the guy can join the supreme court and not ask any questions? >> that's not so unusual. in fact, i was the first one who started asking a lot of questions. >> i got two questions the whole time. it was not at all unusual. >> let's take another break. >> so leave clarence alone. >> he has a principled reason. he told me in his interview, and this is all on the record, he does not ask questions because he thinks it's too many questions as it is and he doesn't want to add to the cacophony. >> let's come back and i want to get into you as a man.

i want to know what makes you tick? what rocks your boat? >> that's scary. >> that's what i want it to be. >> all right.

back with justice scalia and the coauthor of his book. are you a good colleague? how do you get on with your other supreme kourlt -- you're all highly intelligent. very opinionated. are there a lot of clashes there? >>. >> is there are clashes on legal questions. the press likes to paint us as nine scorpions in a bottle. you and justice roberts have been a parting of the ways. >> you should not believe what you read about the court in the newspapers. the information has either been

made up or given to the newspapers by somebody who is violating a comforts which means that person is not reliable. >> loud words exchanged? >> nothing like that. >> best buddiebuddies? >> my best buddy is talking just about everything. >> just about everything. >> what do you like to do when you're not presiding in the supreme court? >> i like to play tennis. >> and in my later years, i have gotten into hunting. so i do a lot of hunting on various animals. >> you've been hunting with dick cheney, haven't you? >> i have, indeed.

>> dick cheney is a very good wink shot. >> humans or animals? >> ducks. >> you got into trouble over that. they said it was a potential conflict. how carefully do you think -- before you accept an invitation to go hunting with dick cheney, how hard do you think about that as a potential conflict. >> in that case, i had accepted the invitation long before the case was the alleged soursz of the conflict was before the court. and that was nothing. if cheney was not personally the defendant, he was named because the head of the ajsen si was the defendant. justices have never recused themselves because they are friends with the named head of an agency. in fact, justices are friendly with a lot of heads of agencies and cabinet officers and whatnot. if we had to recuse ourselves

every time one of our friends was named, even though his personal fortune was not at stake, we would not sit in a lot of cases. >> whepeople say you are ove overtly political with some of your decisions, which some people do, some critics do. how do you feel about that? does it annoy you? >> no, i usually don't read it. >> is this news to you? >> well, i think it's false. justice scalia has a record of deciding many cases that goes against his personal elections. the flag is just one example. but a good judge will do that. a good judge will decide cases bassed on a governing text that go against what the judge may is wise policy. isn't that true? >> i have ruled against the government when republicans were

in the administration. and i ruled for the government when democrats are in. i couldn't carele less who the president is. >> is it purely a motivated manner? >> nothing. >> i know you can't discuss anything in the last session, but some would say it's the health care thing. >> i don't think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons. they vote the way they do because they have their own judicial philosophy. and they may have been slekted by the democrats because they have that particular philosophy. or they may have been select ds by the republicans because of that particular philosophy. but they are who they are. and they vote on the basis of what their own view of the law brings them to believe.

the court is not at all a political institution. not at all. >> when you see chief justice rob erts getting criticized for being political, for being part of that -- >> i've been out of the country for most of that. >> does it offend you that his integrity is questioned like that? >> it offends me that people point to the fact and they didn't used to be able to when david suitor and john paul stevens were still on the court. they often voted with the appointees who were dem kratic appointees so that the decision wasn't always 5-4. now that they're off, it often does turn that way. but that is not because they're voting their politics.

it's because they have been selected by the republicans or selected by the democrats, precisely because of their judicial philosophy. so it should be no surprise that the republicans tend to have a deferent one. that's what elections have been about for a long time. when you lose and a case goes the way you'd like it to , how do you deal with failure? he's a big deal. you play the hand you're dealt. you don't take it personally. >> let's take a break and come back and talk about family. i know you were marry ds a very long time, would you say?

>> i'd say so, yes. ♪ ♪ lord, you got no reason ♪ you got no right ♪ ♪ i find myself at the wrong place ♪ [ male announcer ] the ram 1500 express. ♪ it says a lot about you. ♪ in a deep, hemi-rumble sort of way. guts. glory. ram. did i ever think i would have heart disease. she just didn't fit the profile of a heart event victim. she's healthy, she eats properly.

i was pushing my two kids in a stroller when i had my heart event. i've been on a bayer aspirin regimen ever since. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone. so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i know if i take my bayer aspirin i have a better chance of living a healthy life. [ male announcer ] learn how to protect your heart at i am proheart on facebook. to provide a better benefits package... oahhh! [ male announcer ] it made a big splash with the employees. [ duck yelling ] [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. ♪ ha ha!

[ male announcer ] when diarrhea hits, kaopectate stops it fast. powerful liquid relief speeds to the source. fast. [ male announcer ] stop the uh-oh fast with kaopectate.

back with justice scalia and brian garner, co-author of an excellent book. have you ever broken the law, justice scalia? >> have i ever broken the law? >> yeah. >> i have exceeded the speed limit on occasion. >> ever been caught? >> oh, yes, i've gotten tickets. none recently. >> that's it. that's the only criminal life? >> yeah, i'm pretty much a law-abiding citizen. >> i like the phrase pretty much. >> i'm a law-abiding citizen. >> what is your guilty pleasure? >> i don't have any guilty pleasures. how can it be pleasurable if it's guilty? >> i've got lots of guilty pleasures. >> no, you don't. i do. everyone does. >> ever do anything that you --

>> that i wish i didn't do? >> yeah. >> smoking vmt. >> you've been married for how long? >> 52 years. >> an amazing marriage. 9 children. >> what has been the secret of such a long-standing marriage, do you think? >> maureen made it very clear early on that if we split up, i would get the children. >> we said before the break that possibly she was a long, suffering wife. did she mean that? >> she has worked very hard. i have not gone after the dollar for most of my life. raising that many kids without a nanny or, for many years, even any people to help with the

house work was hard, she worked very hard. >> i ask this of all of my guests. how many times have you been properly in love in your life? >> properly in love? oh, i think maureen is it. >> of course i'll retire. certainly i'll retire when i think i'm not doing as good a job as i used to. that will make me feel very bad. >> and as we sit here now, what would you say your greatest achievement has been as a supreme court justice? >> wow. i think despite the fact that not everybody agrees with it, i think the court pays more attention to text than it used to when i first came on the court, and i like to think that i've had something to do with that. i think that the court uses much

less legislative history than it used to in the past. in the '80s, two-thirds of the opinion would be the discussion of the debates on the floor and the committee reports. and that doesn't happen anymore. if you want to talk about individual -- >> on that point, on the history point. again, critics would say to you, hang on a second. because you're such a constitutionalist and always go back to the way they framed the constitution. they debated all that, i mean, that is in its way legislative history, isn't it? >> what is? what is >> the constitution and amendments and so on. what is the difference really? >> i don't use madison's notes as authoritative on the meaning of the constitution. i don't use that. i use the federalist papers, but not because they were the writers of -- the federalist papers were present. one of them wasn't. john jay was not present at the framing. i use them because they were intelligent people at the time

and, therefore, what they thought this language meant was likely what it meant. >> why do you have such faith in those politicians of that time? do you know what i mean? these days, if the current proper politicians created some new constitution, people wouldn't have the faith that burning, un-flinching faith that you do. why are you so convinced that these guys over 200 years ago were so right? >> you have to read the federalist papers to answer that question. i don't think anybody in the current congress could write even one of those numbers. these men were very, very thoughtful. i truly believe that there are times in history when a genius bursts forth at some part of the globe, you know? like 2000 b.c. in athens

and i think one of those places was 18th century america for political science. you know? madison said that he told the people assembled at the convention, gentlemen, we are engaged in the new science of government. nobody had ever tried to design a government scientifically before. they were brilliant men. and -- >> do you wish we had a few of them now? >> i wish we had a few of them now. and i certainly do not favor tinkering with what they put together. >> justice scalia, it's been fascinating. >> thank you. i enjoyed talking with you. >> brian, congratulations. it's an amazing book. anyone that's listened to that will want to go and read it. it is a weighty term. it's full of humor, as the interviews mean. and i think it will give people a much better understanding of what you're about and i think you've helped bring that out and so i applaud you. may you sell many books. may you continue to reside with a lot more time. it would be a lot less colorful without you. >> thank you.

>> after the break, an only in america special. justice scalia takes me on a tour of the supreme court and names his favorite american president ever and his favorite italian pasta dish. according to ford, the works fuel saver package could terally pay for itself. jim twitchel is this true? yes it's true. how is this possible? proper tire inflation, by using proper grades of oil, your car runs more efficiently, saves gas. you could be doing this right now? yes i could, mike. i'm slowing you down? yes you are. my bad. the works fuel saver package. just $29.95 or less after rebate. only at your ford dealer. so, to sum up, you take care of that, you take care of these, you save a bunch of this.

that works. [ slap! slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums your mouth has sipped, snacked, ...yellowed... giggled, snuggled, ...yellowed... chatted, chewed, ...yellowed. and over all those years, your teeth...have yellowed. fact is, if you're not whitening, you're yellowing. crest 3d white whitestrips remove over ten years of stains by going below the enamel surface. and, they whiten 25 times better than a leading whitening toothpaste. crest whitestrips. life opens up when you do.

tonight, justice scalia took me on a tour and we talk presidents and pasta. so in the bowels of the supreme court.

>> bowels? do you have to say that? >> do you still get a little thrill when you come in. >> no. i've gotten used to it by now. it's a nice place to work. >> who has been the most impressive president for you personally. >> most, what, in history? >> no. >> in my lifetime? >> in your lifetime, yeah. >> i guess ronald reagan. i would be an ingrate if i didn't say ronald reagan. >> what made him special? >> he was the great communicator. he had a real way of making important and complex ideas comprehensible to the people. >> did he make any requests? >> no. >> did he say anything? >> no. >> would you tell me if he had? >> he almost got my name right! >> when we went out to the press room in the white house and one

of reagan's aides says to me, well, we think he'll get scalia right, but we don't know about antonin. and, sure enough, i think he messed up. >> you were the first italian in the supreme court. not only italian-america. >> it was a big deal for the italians. i got an enormous amount of mail afterwards. >> do you ever have to pay for the bowl of spaghetti in new york? >> i have a lot of italian friends. >> but i put questions out on twitter of all the serious ones, one popped out which is what is his favorite pasta dish? >> my smaegs amazing pasta dish? >> i hear your wife does azi