scalia was an originalist. he made an enormous contribution to the court by saying, number one you look at the text of the constitution. that's what lawyers do. they look at the text of statutes or they look at the text of documents. and secondly, that you look at the original understanding of the people of the society at the time of the enactment of the constitution, 1789.so the main body of the constitution was seven articles.for the first 10 amendments the bill of rights, 1791. he would have looked at the understanding of that society but you, and you get some extraordinary interpretations. for example, on the issue of capital punishment, very dear to school - very dear to antonin scalia's heart. -- who is the lord in the context of capital punishment. it is the state. so capital punishment is on its face authorized by the constitution and fifth amendment. it talks, no one hall answers a capital crime list by indictment and no one should be deprived of life without due process of law. so the due process of l

it opens with scalia's rage aurea.and that's this, the justices are blind, how can they possibly spout this? the constitution says, absolutely nothing about this. and i answer that he is searching for bright mind solutions to problems that don't have easy answers, but the great thing about our constitution is that, like our society, it can evolve. >> rose: yeah. so that sets up the -- >> rose: yes. ( laughter ) >> and then we have a wonderful duet at the end. it says we are different, we are one. different in the way we approach the interpretation of legal texts but one in our reverence for the constitution and the court. >> rose: one thing justice scalia said it wasn't necessarily a good idea for the supreme court to say how many justices came from harvard or yale, and most of them had judicial experience at the court of appeals level. >> i didn't think he thought that. >> rose: regardless of whether he said it or not -- ( laughter ) >> i'll give you that. >> rose: okay. well, since i'm from yale, and ruth spends part

you talk about justice scalia. indeed, one of the best discussions i had with him took place in front of 2,000 students in lubbock, texas, and they probably hadn't seen a supreme court justice. and we went on for about an hour, and we tried to describe what we did. we tried to explain, we do have different points of view to some degree, not as much as people think, but to some degree. and i went away thinking, and he did, too, at the end, it is not so important whether they agree more with him -- you see, he's afraid i would be too subjective and i would tend to substitute what i think is good for what the law requires, and i would think, well, i try not to do that. but more importantly, he says i think you have a method that's too rigid. i don't say it in a rude way but he knows that's what i think, that the constitution won't work as well for the people who have to live under it now. we talk about that, whether they agreed more with me or more with him. i think the 2,000 students left feeling a little bit better

it opens with scalia's rage aria.ns, you know a rage aria is typical of handle. -- of handel. the justices are blind. how can they possibly spout this? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. he is searching for bright solutions to problems that don't have easy answers. but, the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up -- and then we have a wonderful duet at the end. [laughter] justice ginsburg: it says, we are different, we are one. different in the way we approach the interpretation of legal text, but one in our reverence for the constitution and the court. charlie: one thing justice scalia said, it probably wasn't the best idea that how many supreme court justices came from harvard or yale. that wasn't necessarily a good idea for the supreme court. do you agree with that? and most of them had judicial experience at court of appeals level. justice sotomayor: i thought she -- he did not think that. charlie: didn't he say something like that? ok, regardle

it does of course commemorate justice scalia's passing. it will be taken down on monday, 30 days after his passing with the court's tradition. and at that time we will also rearrange the bench chairs to reflect the new composition of the court. instead of justice scalia to my right it'll be justice kennedy. and instead of justice kennedy to my left it'll be justice thomas. and everybody's will switch from one side to another. and there will not be a chair at the far left, which is where our new member will sit. and the flags on our plaza will once again fly at full staff. but justice scalia's presence will always be felt here in this courtroom. i remember when i commemorated his 25th anniversary from the bench, i indicated he had arrived 25 years ago and the place hasn't been the same since. and that remains true. but his contributions and had way he shaped this institution will be the subject of historical society lectures for many years to come. tonight, though, it's about john marshall and the 215th anniversary of his becoming chief jus

i do not think he will be that different from justice scalia. although, i also share judge kaczynski's impression that he will perhaps be more conservative than justice scalia was. in usinglso echo greg the trilogy of adjectives he used to describe gorsuch's writings. not only the frequency, but also the tone that was used. and also the substance of his .ositions .adical or revolutionary he is not has in it to reshape the law. and you know, borrowing on the statistic of the other justices , taking a little more time and may be moderating among colleagues erwin mentioned the , trinity concern. in a case i talked about, justice speier also wrote a notable dissent. those were notable because they do not often use the rhetoric they used in those cases to challenge the majority opinion or their colleagues. judge gorsuch use that rhetoric in a most every opinion he wrote. >> let me just correct -- i don't want to say correct, but let me just react to what you said. the reason the nuclear option was used for the first time by the democrats. it was harr

justice scalia: that is what the first amendment means. have your right to express your contempt for the government. that doesn't mean it was right for him to do that in that manner by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many other people. he had the right to do it. host: two of the justices on today's supreme court talking about the evolution of speech in society. openingenck case was an salvo on what is our modern discussion on the right to speech. where are we today? thomas: we are in a much more protective place forced free-speech. we like ideas. some think it goes too far because it protects the right to make campaign contributions. the citizens united case can be controversial. in general the supreme court said if you want to communicate with people, we will protect you. if your ideas are bad, they will be rejected. we are not afraid of what you have to say. host: what is the legacy of schenck v. united states? beverly: schenck did start this decision about the constitution and what it was going to mean. i also think schenck sy

antone scalia and the republican majority congress in lock step said no way. and people are now getting that and -- and they did a good job and we couldn't win. we had to scream out since the democrats are not doing a great job of it. it goes back to the sickness that the republicans have created. i forget what they were now. and this is because of the. the nra plucks away and makes it happen. it is changing and i understand it over the years. i have been traveling. and it is being threatened and it is continuing. >> when did gow get active in politics? >> well, we did make one advance this time. and it garnered a lot of votes and a lot of people regret. and it is in advance. and it is left on the democratic party. so i am delighted or and what they did. and another way around it and the -- we asked about this and the it was afforded. you say you were in favor of freelections in el salvadore but i forget where it is. i think el salvadore. and it is the ideals that i so wanted in the second place. i answered the second question. i am going to try to reanswer. i

scalia did not believe in the other half of the dissent, which was about the right of privacy. now, privacy as a constitutional right cannot proscribe those decisions that men or women make to shape their own lives. certain choices, brandeis believed, are so fundamental that they may properly be said to be totally outside the reach of the state's power. over the years, the court has come to recognize areas of procreation, marriage, family life, health, and more recently, sexual orientation. despite great pressure from religious and social conservative groups, the court and the country have accepted brandeis' notion that the constitution embodies a right to be let alone. debate has not ceased, but the arguments are less on whether the right to privacy exists and more on what are its limits. there are those who have argued that the constitution does not mention privacy. justice anthony kennedy has responded that the framers had not drafted the document in specific terms. they did not claim to know the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities but were themselves open, a

the two opinions by scalia track the brandeis opinion in omstead but do not cite it because justice scalia did not believe in the other half of the dissent, which was about the right of privacy. now, privacy as a constitutional right cannot proscribe those decisions that men or women make to shape their own lives. certain choices brandeis believed are so fundamental that they may properly said to be totally outside the reach of the state's power. over the years the court has come to recognize areas of proceed creatio procreation, family life and sexual orientation. the court and the country have accepted brandeis' notion that the constitution embodies a right to be left alone. the base has not ceased but the arguments on whether or not privacy exists and more on what are its limits. to those who argued that the constitution does not mention privacy, justice anthony kennedy responded the framers had not drafted the document in specific terms. they did not claim to know the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, but were themselves open as the court needed to be to new argument

he will perhaps be more conservative than justice scalia was. i would also echo using the --logy of added details adjectives in which he described neil gorsuch is writing -- gorsuch's writing. the substance of his position, .hey were assertive were radical and perhaps revolutionary. he is not one to hesitate to be theed the law -- reshape law. borrowing on the statistic of the other justices taking a little more time and moderating the town among colleagues, erwin concern. the trinity there is defenses were notable because they do not often use the rhetoric they used in those cases to challenge the majority opinion or their colleagues. judge gorsuch use that rhetoric in a most every opinion he wrote. just react to what you said. the reason the nuclear option was used for the first time by with therats filibuster -- we had other times in the past where we were on the brink with the bush administration. before, when there was talk about the republicans using a nuclear option, they pulled back. if the confirmation process has changed, you need to s

at the end of the first sentence, justice scalia leaned over the the bench in this way i knew he had, leaned over and i had just said something, a short declarative sentence and he wait, wait! wait! except he said it more strongly than that. [laughter] he proceeded to tell me why this single sentence was wrong, but it was the absolute best thing that anybody could have done a . it forced me to be in the game right away and my own view is that he knew that. that he knew from the sound of my voice saying that single sentence, that i was a little bit shaky and he was just going to put me in the game right away and if summary challenges you, -- if somebody challenges you you have to stand right back and that is what happened and it turned out fine. [applause] i told the story once before, maybe even a couple of times before. and i had remembered it in my head as justice scalia leaning forward on the bench and saying, no, no, no, no. [laughter] it was really the way i had remembered it. then one of the reporters who saw that speech that i gave said, you know it wasn't for waits! s it was 4

she graduated with distinction from the antonin scalia law school at george mason university and with honors from university of virginia. thank you for joining us and well, to the program. to my immediate right we have professor james cooper, professor cooper is an associate professor of law at antonin scalia law school at george mason university. james brings over a decade of public and private sector expensed as research and teaching work. james also spent time at the federal trade commission where he served as the deputy and acting director of the office of policy planning and is an attorney advisor to the federal trade commission or bill. i wanted note james also spent some time here with the antitrust group, a fairly fine firm crowell & moring in his earlier career. we are happy to welcome james back. his research at the law school focuses on competition and consumer protection issues including privacy, data security, state restraints on competition, behavioral economics and antitrust treatment and prices commission. james has a ba from university of south carolina and a phd in e

. >> that is the secret to my soledad: now a new play about the between conservative justice scalia andtional liberal law clerk. mirrored their friendship. different in the way we approac text, but one in our reverence for the institution we served, the supreme court. soledad: today, she says, she re hopeful because of the changes she has seen in her lifetime, including the end of segregation in schools and the end of the ban on interracial marriage. >> the truth about the united no a pendulum. when it goes too far in one way, [laughter]t it will come rig [applause] soledad: words we can all get behind. o'brien.dad ." will see you ne ♪ ♪ ♪ robert handa: hello, and welcome to "asian pacific america." i'm robert handa, your host for our show here on nbc bay area and cozi tv. there are not many events in american history that had as big an impact on a whole community and one with such potentially tragic consequences as the internment of japanese americans during world war ii. and today, we focus on an organization that played a big role in navigating through those difficult times and conti

he is on associate professor of law at antonin scalia law school at george mason university. james brings a decade of public and private sector experience through his research and teaching work and he also spent time at the federal trade commission where he served as the deputy and acting director of the office of policy planning and as attorney advisor to federal trade commission or bill come off sick and he also spent time here with antitrust group earlier in his career, so we are happy to welcome at james back. professor cooper's research at the law school focuses on competition and consumer protection issues including privacy, data security, behavioral economic and antitrust treatment of vertical practices and price dissemination. james has a ba from the university of south carolina and phd in economics from emory university and also holds a law degree from antonin scalia law school at george mason university. last, but not least we have sarah oxenham allen. sir alan is eight senior assistant attorney general of the antitrust unit in that virginia attorney general's offic

. >> that is the secret to my soledad: now a new play about the between conservative justice scalia and fictional liberal law clerk. mirrored their friendship. different in the way we approac text, but one in our reverence for the institution we served, the supreme court. soledad: today, she says, she re hopeful because of the changes she has seen in her lifetime, including the end of segregation in schools and the end of the ban on interracial marriage. >> the truth about the united no a pendulum. when it goes too far in one way, [laughter]t it will come rig [applause] soledad: words we can all get behind. o'brien.dad ." will see you ne ♪ ♪ >> from studio 20 at kofytv, it's the show that makes you sweat to the beat of the '80s, it's dance party. i'm your dj, dj katie, and now the man who brings the party right into your living, it's our host, morris knight. >> what's up people? it's wonderful to have you all here on kofytv dance party, bringing the party to your very own living room. are you ready for some great music, some great fun? are you ready to dance? are you ready to party? are

for one thing, even justice scalia recently said that this could happen again.we have to be on the lookout and on the alert at all times. are we in a situation where some other group, whether it is arab americans, or any other group, comes under this kind of hostility and scrutiny? and as one of the supreme court justices dissenting in the case said, this principle lies around like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority with a plausible reason. susan: looking at the history as you have studied it, was this particular to japanese-americans? on the east coast, there were threats of german sumbmarines coming to the united states. were german-americans ever rounded up? why were japanese-american singled out? karen: there were some german-americans and italian-americans who are put into some of the prisons and camps. they were on a case-by-case basis. with the japanese-americans, they were singled out just because they looked like the enemy. and so, therefore, that was why they were rounded up without any due process. and put into these american concent

james also holds a law degree magna cum laude at antonin scalia school. >> allison is assistant attorney general and anti-trust unit in the virginia attorney general's office. she currently co-chairs the national association of attorneys generals state action working group so the right person to be on this panel. ms. allen successfully argued the summary judgment motion and 4th circuit appeal on virginia board of medicine and six individual board members against an anti-trust claim by a chiropractor sanctioned by the board for practicing outside of the statutory scope of practice. recently ms. allen represented the commonwealth of virginia in federal and multi-state to mergers and worked to challenge and settle other mergers. before coming to the virginia attorney general's office, sara has spent time, eight years at the federal trade commission. so, thank you very much. and with that, i will turn it back over. >> great. so, the format of today's program is we're going to try to do interactive discussion led by the moderator's asking question and reserve 10, 15 minutes at the end for que

one month later, justice scalia died. ah. we ended up with a 4-4 decision, but we asked for a rehearing, once there would be nine justices back on the court, and on my birthday, we were rejected. so we lost on my birthday. but i haven't lost hope, even though we lost on my birthday. maybe that's a sign, we lost on my birthday so i should have hope. here's why i have hope. there's more cases coming, you're about to hear about the janice case that's petitioning the court now. and you're going to hear about the yan case. my job is, i'm out educating teachers, i'm educating legislators, people like you, policymakers, i'm educating parents, i'm trying to help them understand, we don't have to put up with this, this is america, and we can be free. we're starting to be heartd, but we can't do it alone. so i have a call to action today, we need your help. could you please adopt a teacher? everybody knows a teacher, there's a teacher in your church or synagogue, there's a teacher in your family, i bet you. just adopt at least one and

i hope you will join me in just a moment of silence to remember justice scalia. thank

one month later, justice scalia died. ah. we ended up with a 4-4 decision, but we asked for a rehearing, once there would be nine justices back on the court, and on my birthday, we were rejected. so we lost on my birthday. but i haven't lost hope, even though we lost on my birthday. maybe that's a sign, we lost on my birthday so i should have hope. here's why i have hope. there's more cases coming, you're about to hear about the janice case that's petitioning the court now. and you're going to hear about the yawn case. my job is, i'm out educating teachers, i'm educating legislators, people like you, policymakers, i'm educating parents, i'm trying to help them understand, we don't have to put up with this, this is america, and we can be free. we're starting to be heard, but we can't do it alone. so i have a call to action today, we need your help. could you please adopt a teacher? everybody knows a teacher, there's a teacher in your church or synagogue, there's a teacher in your family, i bet you. just adopt at least one and

died.e scalia had just he was always a strong critic of affirmative action.ce gorsuch is a strong critic, that won't change things. the supreme court has been rolling on this issue since the late 1970's. the court has been pretty consistent with a range of justices saying it is ok to consider race and ethnicity. it's not ok to do it in a way that effectively creates a two-tiered system. you always need to be looking at your situation, thinking about is this the best way to do this. are there alternatives? period of decades for which the supreme court has been consistent that yes it is ok but there are limits. host: how much does the attorney general factor in on this? when he was nominated, the american association for access, equity and diversity urged u.s. senate opposes nomination. they cited a comment he made in 1997 about affirmative action. -- urged the u.s. senate to oppose his nomination. they cited a comment he made in 1997 about affirmative action. as his views on that being turned into policy? guest: his views and certainly influenced the prioritie

but it was scalia's direct attack on the exclusionary rule that bears note. herring versus united states in 2009 was written by justice roberts himself. this case was interesting. a member of law enforcement not in the jurisdiction where the arrest took place but a member of law enforcement in another jurisdiction made an error. it was an error in terms of whether somebody had an outstanding warrant. in this case chief justice john roberts said the police officer that actually executed what he thought was a warrant was acting in good faith because he didn't know that the warrant actually should have been pulled. so it was the first time we had a case before the court where a member of the law enforcement community participated in the error, and in this particular case the court said, despite the fact that the person was from the law enforcement community rather than the legislature or the courts, that evidence should still be excluded from trial. why? because the police officer making the arrest didn't know about it, acted in good faith. so that's a significa

what was important in this decision is justice scalia's comments that he thought it was pretty much time to reevaluate the exclusionary rule and one of the reasons he said we should be evaluating it is because ironically the need for it no longer existed because the police had been professionalized and because people were acting professionally you don't need the exclusionary rule. he also suggested there were other remedies that you could use if people had their evidence seized from an illegal search. so criminals could also sue the police or maybe the police can police themselves, and these have been remedies that folks have always talked about and there is proof which shows that this can be an effective remedy in certain instances, but it was scalia's direct attack on the exclusionary rule that bears note. the most significant case, herring versus united states written by chief justice roberts. a member of law enforcement not in the jurisdiction where the arrest took place but a member of law enforcement in another jurisdiction made an error, it was an error in terms of whether somebod

scalia himself, a fine writer, is saying, look, i think there's nobody better than jackson.y a great -- anybody who's interested should read the jackson opinions for just how well they can cut through legalese so to speak and get to the heart of legal issues. >> robert is in springfield, new jersey. hi, robert. >> caller: yes, thank you. since the youngstown case, in what cases has the supreme court cited the three-tiered approach formulated by justice jackson and his concurrence? >> okay, thanks. we're to talk about that a little more, but brief answer? >> we've only got 27-some odd minutes left. i can't list them all. one thing i might note, though, particular key to jackson's concurrence, the concurrence may not bind people to very much. that is to say, the framework is there and people -- what it allows is people to use their own judgment to determine what has congress said on this or not. that may be particularly significant aspect of this. it's influential but it doesn't necessarily constrain very much. >> and i hope we'll talk about this. how we characterize that zone

one month later, justice scalia died. on my birthday we were rejected so we lost on my birthday. but you know what, i haven't lost hope. maybe that's a sign. i should have a lot of hope. something better is coming for another birthday. i have a little call to action for you today, we need your help. would you please adopt a teacher? and i am not kidding. everybody knows a teacher. there's a teacher in your church or synagogue, a teacher in your family, i bet you. there's a teacher in your neighborhood. one, two, three, a whole bunch of them? adopt at least one and do this. educating that teacher on truth. the truth that we can be certified, the truth about these bases that we shouldall be fighting for freedom, the truth that they don't need to be terrified all the time and then emphasize this and say don't get mad , emphasized. they are fully, constantly in a culture of fear that the unions have created on our school campus and empathize with them. and then empower them. and power them to learn more, to appreciate this talk or are cases because here's why we need your help and th

justice scalia is saying i think there's nobody better than jackson.lly great, anybody who is interested should read the jackson opinions for how well they can cut through legalese and get to the heart of legal issues. >> robert is in springfield, new jersey, hi, robert. >> caller: thank you. since the youngstown case in what cases has the supreme court cited the three-tiered approach formulated by justice jackson in his concurrence. >> we've only got some-odd minutes left. i can't list them all for you. it will get cited a lot. one thing i should note this is part of a particular key to jackson's concurrence, the concurrence may not, the framework is there and what it allows is people to use their own judgment to determine what congress has said on this or not that may be particularly significant aspect of this. it's influential, but it doesn't necessarily constrain very much. >> how we characterize the zone of twilight is going to change over time. and the president's ability to exercise authority and count on judicial back something going to become

scalia, very conservative and he was unanimously confirmed in the senate. ruth bader ginsburg, hard-core lefty, she was confirmed 96-3. those days are long gone because the partisanship of these battles have become more pitched and zero-sum. ok, so the last thing i will point out is, some people say if only we had a system like another country. like a parliament tree system like they have in great britain or canada. in order to adopt a different process, that would take massive constitutional changes. i do not think it is realistic. one thing that i do think we should at least take a look at is the system of voting that they have in australia. i have a cousin who works in conservative politics in austria, and i visited him a couple years ago, and they were in the middle of an election campaign. if you think we have tough ads here, attack ads, some of those in australia were brutal. i was like, oh man. anyway, the way they do it is, they have what is called "linked voting." -- ranked voting. the more i thought about it, the more i liked it. i want you to mul