yes that was justice antonin scalia suggesting that and l. rocket launchers might be constitutional under the second amendment and what's his brilliant argument to justify this let's listen again to the amendment does not apply to. arms that cannot be hand carried to keep and bear it doesn't apply to cannons did you catch that school is making the argument this is the founding fathers specifically said the right to bear arms then any weapon that can be carried by someone's hands or their arms is good to go unclear if the same logic applies to remote control for a weapons load of drones since someone can bear a joystick or if it applies to nuclear weapons and someone can bear a triggering mechanism or even shoulder fired nuclear weapons tactical nuclear weapons that many believe will soon be able to be fired from one shoulder this is the sort of wacky logic that comes from scalia when he complains to his original is the argument of the constitution is the argument that the constitution is dead is that living and breathing to adapt to a changin

that still does not mean i would support justice antonin scalia aon the supreme court. the approach does matter and that is why i believe voting against -- nothing against commissioner antonini, i think he has a different perspective. thank you. president chiu: if i could remind folks that we do have a board rule against expressing a pause or opposition to statements, to keep the conversation flowing more expeditiously. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i will be supporting this nomination. i think that he has been a superb commissioner and i do not agree with him on everything. there have been times when we have disagreed and as with other commissioners, for example cindy wu, i supported and do not agree with. but four commissioners weren't to work hard and who are committed to the city. i do respect every supervisor's broc if to vote against the commissioner with whom they have policy disagreements. i do not think that is inappropriate. every supervisor has to decide for himself or herself what criteria they use and policy views are a legitimate consideration. i t

justice scalia chooses his words very carefully. one of the things he talked about is the historic prohibition on certain types of dangerous weapons. in the segment that followed, the clip you just showed, he actually talked about a tort back in the days when our country was first formed where it was against the law to carry a weapon that would frighten your neighbors. he used that as an example -- >> eliot: battle-ax. can i interrupt? by tort, you mean a form of legal action, not a dessert. >> yes. exactly. i'm talking about a legal action that would result in a misdemeanor and in that case, he said it was a criminal misdemeanor. so i think that's an important thing for us to focus on. even back then, there were restrictions on the places where people could carry. some places like in massachusetts, you couldn't bring your arms even though you could possess them into the town square because it was considered a crowded place. i would argue that that's the same kind of restrictions that we should have here in new york city where we ha

and justice scalia joins me now. thank you for being here. >> thank you. good to be here. >> warner: you're a busy man, judging 75, 80 major cases a year. what drove you to write this... some would call it a tome. >> oh, well, it's not a tome. well, i've been very much devoted to text wallism and to that branch of tex wallism that's called originalism. that is you not only use the text but you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted by the congress and by the people if it's a constitutional provision. although i've written a lot of opinions on the subject and spen on the subject and even written on the subject i've never done hit in the depth that this book does. the book niece two parts: one expresses, you know, my philosophy in judging and brian's philosophy of judging and the second part is a how to do it part. assuming you are a texturalist, how do you go about doing it? the process is not novel, i didn't make it up. it shows that it is historically what american judges did. what english judges did. and it's the other modes of interpretati

the house lowercase from 2008, both justice scalia were the five and a majority, and justice stevens wrote for in the descent. they both fought the case on the grounds of remission. justice stevens, kind of remarkably, i think endeavor to read justice scalia that reno was a self-described original list on the ground and tried to muster evidence some people some very compelling as to whether the framers of the second amendment to apply to an individual right or only the right of connections with membership in the militia so that was our regionalism at its height when you have all nine justices kind of fighting out over journalism it came out. we don't really know. the text and the history is ambiguous and we could stand here all day and call an expert on the amendment and we wouldn't get any agreement. so, what to do about that. justice breyer had an interesting opinion on that case and he joined stevens dissented and then he also goes separately to say look this is not a productive way to go about this. we need to look more pragmatically and we need to go back if we are going to go b

it didn't have anything to do with cheney's personal liability, and justice scalia explained himself with a 20-page opinion as to why friendship with a high government official if this became means for recusal over history, many, many supreme court justices would have had to recuse themselves from cases because, of course, you don't get to be a supreme court justice unless you know a few people in high places. so i'm just personally against speaking as a citizen, i'm not an expert on ethics, i'm quite comfortable about just feeling that the members of the court are making the ethical calls that i would wish they would make. >> hi. i have a follow-up question in a sense touching on citizens united and cases like that. about the politics of the concept of judicial restraint. for much of the 20th century, it was progressives who argued for judicial restraint when the courts were striking down new deals laws. then after the 1950s and '60s, this was a very powerful conservative political argument. wonder where you think that argument stands now, will we see it becoming a liberal call agai

help protect your eye health. >>> in today's deep dive, scalia is the longest serving of the supremegh court. his opinions are colorful, sometimes even stinging. and now he's talking candidly because he has a new book out that he hopes will guide judges and lawyers on how to interpret the law. pete williams sat down with him to talk about his judicial philosophy and how his colleagues manage to get along even after strongly disagreeing with one another like this year. >> should a judge do his or her job dispassionately, that is to say without passion? >> no. i wouldn't put it that way. should do it impartially. no. i care passionately about the right and the wrong way to decide a case. you should not let your passion distort your intellect but there's no sin in caring passionately about doing the right thing. >> not surprising that you knew where i was headed with that question. many of your opinions are full of passion, wouldn't you say? >> yeah. there are some mistakes that one should feel passionately about. mostly my dissenting opinions you are talking about. yes. i care very muc

lou: leave it to justice anthony scalia. very few people do that. chris was entertaining, as were we all. for example, said the justice, if you carried around a really horrible weapon, just to scare people like a head after something, that was, i believe, a misdemeanor. >> the interesting thing is that this notion -- there is a law in north carolina that is similar to that. saying that you can cause terror by carrying a handgun in the open. but the concept is in that state, there is an open carry law. so you can go to jail for doing something that is legal. that is the problem with gun control in this country. >> can you go to jail in north carolina or is it a tort and civil law? >> i will look most respectfully at this. it is not a personal injury claim. it would actually be something that we could be arrested with, you know. lou: i can imagine there thousands upon thousands of personal injury attorneys salivating. >> i think what the justice was saying is that there can be restrictions in terms of guns in this country. there are certain things tha

. >> schieffer: justice scalia said stories like this are made up or given by people who violated a confidence. therefore, they are unreliable. >> well, i accept his statement. >> schieffer: would you agree with na? >> well, i just don't see how anybody would be in a position to know what was said. i don't, and i'm up there. i have an office. i'm close to them. >> schieffer: sure. >> i don't pry around and try to find out who said what when. >> schieffer: but, again, you do not see this as having an impact or changing the court--

. >>> supreme court justice antonin scalia on how he feels about justices changing their vote at thelusive interview with the conservative justice coming up next. we'll be right back. e announcer] when this hotel added aflac 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! but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... an intense burning sensation i woke up with this horrible rash on my right side. like somebody had set it

justice scalia sat down with our justice correspondent, pete williams.w book, "reading the law, the interpretation of legal texts." pete, this is fascinating stuff because he doesn't often sit down for an interview at all, and he's a very lively, outspoken justice and that's the way he was with you. >> he was. he was in a very good mood. i think he's feeling good about where the court is right now, where things are headed next term. what we talked about mostly is what's in the book which is how he approaches judging, decideing the difficult legal questions and basically he says he thinks many judges do it wrong. here's what he said. >> you describe yourself as a textualist. what is one? >> a textualist is someone who believes that legal provisions in the constitution or in a statute are to be determined on the basis of the fairest meaning of the text, not by use of such extrinsic factors as is what is the general purpose of the statute or what did the senate committee say when the statute was enacted, but rather, just taking the words which is the only t

test and scalia this past week did give the peasants an option and that's their second amendment right he said they have a second amendment right to bear shoulder launched missiles that could be a way to defend yourself from wall street who knows i know i saw this judge scalia business you know he's a supreme court justice he says you know maybe you've got the right to carry shoulder missile launching grenade launchers and you know he does have a point because in america the second amendment everyone's got the right to bear arms as a result everyone in fact in america has a gun so just having a gun doesn't really protect you you need one of these you need a shoulder to shoulder melted missile launcher you know you need a permit launcher so you know if exercise my second amendment rights i need the right to bear grenades. if i go to baghdad somebody might be in there with a cone or tack assault rifle i know you wanted to protect my second amendment rights. you know the second amendment right argument in america by the way is completely specious for the very simple reason if you thought

people say yes scalia and stevens disagree.n't really know who's right, but they're both doing what judges are supposed to do. they're just trying to find out what those words meant. not one of them wants civilians to be disarmed-- >> eliot: what should the counter argument be to originalism? >> i think a degree of candor would be refreshing. in which the judges said, look, we have to, we can't let the constitution be a straight jacket. we have to be candid and say, of course we're departing from the historical understanding. >> cenk: and your view is not only would it resonate with the public, but would ultimately prevail because the intellectual integrity of it would be the better argument, the more persuasive argument than simply trying to play the historical game. it would be at best, as you say indeterminate. >> i'm paraphrasing, i think it's better to let the occasion occasional criminal run wild--let the occasional criminal run off than be complicity in violation of the law. that really all about you can say on many cons

i was honored to be compared to mitt romney and antonin scalia. i told the reporter i would be just as honored to be compared to president obama or justice stephen briar. we did not make all our elected officials, but we did make the supreme court, judges and commissioners and others, appointed positions that are not subject to periodic votes of the electorate. that's important in a democracy but also has its downfalls because sometimes it keeps officials such as judges are commissioners from being completely objective in their vote or in the positions they take because they are subject to not only the feelings of their constituents but their contributors. it is important we keep the separation of powers and i think this is a key issue when you talk about comparisons to judges. finally, i'm very happy to report that when i go to work coming from the west side to my office, frequently when i'm not taking muni, i will drive, happy there are eight projects under construction along that route. i'm glad to say that is the case. but we are actually seei

justice kennedy, scalia and brier. in the wake of the recent rhetoric about the sitting she's just as, i think that the conversation is more relevant. i am concerned about the rhetoric about the chief justice. he has been called everything from a traitor to having betrayed president george w. bush. i think these types of attacks reveal the misguided notion that justices and judges 0 some allegiance to the president who appointed them. i've served on this committee for the three decades. i have questioned every supreme court justice serving on the high court at their confirmation hearings. i've voted to confirm justices and judges nominated by both republican and democratic presidents. as i did in voting for chief justice roberts. on long noted that i do not vote to confirm individuals because i expect to agree with all of their decisions. probably every justice i voted, i disagree with some decisions. a lot of the decisions i agree with. will they be a fair and independent judge? i say this because nobody should demand

justice scalia this past week did give the peasants an option and that's their second amendment right he said they have a second amendment right to bear shoulder launched missiles that could be a way to defend yourself from wall street you know he does have a point because in america under the second amendment everyone's got the right to bear arms as a result everyone in fact in america has a gun so just having a gun doesn't really protect you you need one of these you need a shoulder to shoulder melted missile launcher you know you need a launcher you know to exercise my second amendment rights i need the right to bear grenades if i go to baghdad somebody might be in there with the goal or to track assault rifle i need one of these the production is a second amendment rights. well coming out we've got the business data here in our t.v. and of course the kaiser report that's coming up later in the meantime u.s. congressman explains why he thinks washington's foreign policy has been full of mistakes before that though bringing the headlines don't go away. everyone wants to be president

[applause] in the past, we have had justice breyer andd justice justice scalia were here. we have had many schools around the country that have the dvd of that hearing. people stop me on the street who have seen the dvd. it is a chance to learn. it is a learning experience. we tried to do that periodically to hear. justice o'connor was appointed to the supreme court by president reagan in 1981. she served on the court until her retirement in 2006. i recall we talked about this in the back with barry goldwater from arizona. justice o'connor would make a great justice. he was right. she has been a leading voice for the portance of civics education. he currently serves on the board of icivics -- she currently serves on the board of icivics. justice, you are pleased to see the number of students? >> [inaudible] i think it would be instructive for young people to have a chance to do that. >> and justice, you are bringing a lot of students to washington. we are streaming this on our website. i think discussions like this serve our democracy. as public officials, we owe it to all

dust and scalia this past week did give the peasants an option and that's their second amendment right he said they have a second amendment right to bear shoulder launched missiles there could be a way to defend yourself from wall street you know he does have a point because in america under the second amendment everyone's got the right to bear arms. as a result everyone in fact in america has a gun so just telling a gun doesn't really protect you you need one of these you need a shoulder to shoulder mounted missile launcher you know you need a permit launcher you know to exercise my second amendment rights i need the right to bear grenades but if i go to baghdad somebody might be in there with a gun or to attack assault rifle i mean one of these the part time i saw a second amendment rights. all right it's time for business and danielle is here so danielle a top comic is recalling more defective models tell us more please. issues with twenty ten lexus's force produced from two thousand and six to last year it means the wrist suspension could fall off on the u.s. because this is the la