marijuana | Healthcare | Gun Control | Foreign Policy | Muslim World | Terrorism | Capitol Hill | Social Issues

Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 7 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
balthazarF Avatar
Posted: 04.10.10, 05:07 PM
J. Scalia is the narrow thinking "conservative" regarding marriage and the inclusion of those whose sexual climaxes are not achieved from heterosexual intercourse (which sometimes includes sodomies). J. Scalia, please advise what interest the state has in if anyone achieves a sexual climax much less how anyone achieves a sexual climax, for the interest of the state in one's sexuality is what the argument denying the rights and benefits of marriage really is about. And if the state has an interest in that sexuality, then what restrictions if any can be placed on the states interest in personal sexual expression? Should J. Scalia's sexual adventures be of interest to the state? Should conservatives fear that masturbators will seek to be allowed to marry themselves? What benerfits could they possibly receive? J. Scalia, like all good conservatives as well as centrists, uses false arguments to keep Americans from reaching their full Constitutional potential, which of course also keeps America from reaching its full national potential, dooming America to a failure worse than mediocrity.
insurancetech Avatar
Posted: 07.23.09, 11:15 PM
Responding very late as usual, well this was great debate indeed, the constitution issues are always interesting to see. Thank you for the video, <a href="" title="SR22 Insurance">SR22 Insurance Tech</a>
scamper Avatar
Posted: 03.25.09, 11:47 PM
Wow. Great debate. One sore point for Breyer was his rational for opposing school vouchers. Here he falls into the trap that Scalia warns about. Breyer basically reasons that the Establishment clause has the purpose to prevent relgious strige. So he says school vouchers would increase religious strife, thus he opposed it. Yet, this is exactly the trap Scalia warns about. Is Breyer an expert on education? Is he an expert on religion and world affairs? By having the court look at purpose and consequence, you immediately step out of your field and into whatever you decide in your head. Indeed, where is the evidence that school vouchers will increase religious strife? They are there in Chile, Sweden, Alberta... all throughout the world. If you're going to look at consequences, then you need evidence. You would need compelling evidence as well to prevent states from using them. Yet, Breyer doesn't follow his own rules and seek evidence when examining purpose. He just assumes, falling for the very trap Scalia warns about. These are issues that do not belong in the supreme court but should be fought in the democratic realm. The evolving constitution talk by Breyer seems nice until he gets to explaining specifics. Then I think you begin to see the trap it sets forth.
Busboy at Law Avatar
Busboy at Law
Posted: 09.08.08, 09:48 AM
The videos from the Federalist Society never play for me. What am I doing wrong?
michael cronan Avatar
michael cronan
Posted: 04.23.07, 01:07 AM
This is such a terrific way to compare two distinct and very powerful understanding the Constitution. The informality allows the Justice's wit to enliven the conversation.