Did Anyone Else See Scalia On Fox News Sunday?

[Kathianne]

I no longer have cable, so no tv. Mostly that's a plus. However, I miss the Sunday shows, so had a bit of time this afternoon and from RCP video of a remark he made, went to Fox and caught the 1/2 hour interview. Fascinating.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-ne...ylist_id=86913

He was open, honest, and careful about not giving out info on the courts or political feelings.

He discussed gun control, actually saying that there can be limits, 'We'll have to see what comes up.'

On leaks about Roberts and Obamacare, 'Either the reporter made up the story or someone gave information in spite of an oath not to do so, either way there's no reason to believe what is said, neither would be men of honor.

Throughout his wit and brilliance shines through. Wicked sense of Churchillian humor.

Seems some of the remarks are making a splash online. Search of: fox news sunday scalia video

https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+...ient=firefox-a

[revelarts]

Should go into the constitution section.

[jimnyc]

Should go into the constitution section.

Thread moved...

I read this earlier this morning. It unnerves me and gives me pause as to where the 2nd amendment rights will come to a halt.

[aboutime]

I no longer have cable, so no tv. Mostly that's a plus. However, I miss the Sunday shows, so had a bit of time this afternoon and from RCP video of a remark he made, went to Fox and caught the 1/2 hour interview. Fascinating.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-ne...ylist_id=86913

He was open, honest, and careful about not giving out info on the courts or political feelings.

He discussed gun control, actually saying that there can be limits, 'We'll have to see what comes up.'

On leaks about Roberts and Obamacare, 'Either the reporter made up the story or someone gave information in spite of an oath not to do so, either way there's no reason to believe what is said, neither would be men of honor.

Throughout his wit and brilliance shines through. Wicked sense of Churchillian humor.

Seems some of the remarks are making a splash online. Search of: fox news sunday scalia video

https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+...ient=firefox-a

Unfortunatly. I did not see the interview, only snippets. But Scalia is DA MAN I would go to, and depend upon for any Constitutional questions.
Cute how Wallace tried to get him to expose his fellow Judges. Which only proves how much more Honorable, and Trustworthy he is..than the Kid playing President.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunatly. I did not see the interview, only snippets. But Scalia is DA MAN I would go to, and depend upon for any Constitutional questions.
Cute how Wallace tried to get him to expose his fellow Judges. Which only proves how much more Honorable, and Trustworthy he is..than the Kid playing President.

If you follow the link I posted, you can see the whole thing. I don't think there should be too many worries about the 2nd amendment, which I think you'd see if you watch.

[aboutime]

If you follow the link I posted, you can see the whole thing. I don't think there should be too many worries about the 2nd amendment, which I think you'd see if you watch.

Will do. Thank you Kathianne. I wasn't worried about it. The Constitution, and the Amendments have stood the TEST of Time, and Radical idea's.

[Kathianne]

Will do. Thank you Kathianne. I wasn't worried about it. The Constitution, and the Amendments have stood the TEST of Time, and Radical idea's.

and as he makes so clear, Scalia is a texturalist. As his comment on the issue makes clear, there is some give. The example he uses is 'handguns' via his majority decision. He notes though, that some 'hand held weapons could bring down airliners,' that may be an issue to be addressed. He doesn't rule out the use of purpose. That is all.

[jimnyc]

If you follow the link I posted, you can see the whole thing. I don't think there should be too many worries about the 2nd amendment, which I think you'd see if you watch.

I'm glad that's the case, Kath, as when I read snippets around the web yesterday, I got nervous, as if Scalia was convinced that certain weapons, any weapons, can be restricted. And we all know how both sides like to redefine things, so I'm afraid if even one weapon gets restricted or banned, that they will fuddle with the wording and create a slippery slope of killing the 2nd slowly.

[logroller]

If you follow the link I posted, you can see the whole thing. I don't think there should be too many worries about the 2nd amendment, which I think you'd see if you watch.

Unless you really want to keep and bear a beheading axe. Scalia clearly doesn't see a problem with bans on those.

[revelarts]

Scalia is Outstanding,
But There were a couple of things he said that concerned me.
When asked about the wire tapping issue _if i remember corectly- he seemed to say that the Phone and electronic devises weren't covered in the 4th amendments privacy provisions, Papers etc.

He seemed to assume that if it's not there specifically that the gov't could write up any old law to spy on people was OK because it's not mentioned specifically or in principal. I'll need to watch it again i may have heard him wrong though.

But it's seem to me that If the power is not granted in the Constitution for the gov't to spy then they don't have a right to do it at all. event IF it's not Considered a part of the 4th amendment.

But i think,... Yeah I'll dare to go so far as to disagree with him...

that the 4th does cover cell phones etc the 4th says .."Papers and EFFECTS"
here's one definition i found
"“Papers” encompass personal items, such as letters and diaries, as well as impersonal business records. “Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect."

and Paper wasn't meant to protect blank sheets of paper.
But the private content of the papers.
Paper was just the vehicle, the cell phone and computer simply replaces paper as a record holder. the Content held on the Paper or Effects is what's protected.

But like I said maybe i misunderstood what he said.

[Kathianne]

Scalia is Outstanding,
But There were a couple of things he said that concerned me.
When asked about the wire tapping issue _if i remember corectly- he seemed to say that the Phone and electronic devises weren't covered in the 4th amendments privacy provisions, Papers etc.)

He seemed to assume that if it's not there specifically that the gov't could write up any old law to spy on people was OK because it's not mentioned specifically or in principal. I'll need to watch it again i may have heard him wrong though.

But it's seem to me that If the power is not granted in the Constitution for the gov't to spy then they don't have a right to do it at all. event IF it's not Considered a part of the 4th amendment.

But i think,... Yeah I'll dare to go so far as to disagree with him...

that the 4th does cover cell phones etc the 4th says .."Papers and EFFECTS"
here's one definition i found
"“Papers” encompass personal items, such as letters and diaries, as well as impersonal business records. “Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect."

and Paper wasn't meant to protect blank sheets of paper.
But the private content of the papers.
Paper was just the vehicle, the cell phone and computer simply replaces paper as a record holder. the Content held on the Paper or Effects is what's protected.

But like I said maybe i misunderstood what he said.

If I remember correctly and right now I don't have the time to listen again, he stated there is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, the crux of the problem with Roe.

As for how he addressed electronic surveillance, I don't think it came under privacy, as the right doesn't exist but as a search:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...c+Surveillance

As technology continues to develop, the Court has had to consider new methods of investigation by law enforcement officials. In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2035, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001), the Court considered the constitutionality of the use of a thermal imaging device during surveillance of a home. An agent of the U.S. Interior Department suspected that the defendant, Danny Kyllo, was growing marijuana in his home. The officer knew that indoor marijuana growth requires use of high-intensity lamps, and the officer sought to discover the presence of these lamps through the use of the thermal imaging device. The device demonstrated that the defendant was likely using a high-intensity lamp, and the agent then sought a Search Warrant from a federal magistrate judge. A subsequent search of the home discovered marijuana.


The Supreme Court, per Justice Antonin Scalia, found that the use of the device to survey the inside of the defendants home constituted a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes. The government argued that because the device only sensed heat emanating from the exterior of the house, use of the device was not an unlawful intrusion on the defendant. Scalia disagreed, noting that Katz forbids a mechanical application of the Fourth Amendment that focuses only upon the physical capability of a surveillance device. He noted, "Reversing that approach [in Katz] would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology—including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home." Because the agent had not obtained a warrant until after he conducted a search of Kyllo's home, the search violated Kyllo's Fourth Amendment rights.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If I remember correctly and right now I don't have the time to listen again, he stated there is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, the crux of the problem with Roe.

As for how he addressed electronic surveillance, I don't think it came under privacy, as the right doesn't exist but as a search:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...c+Surveillance

I believe he is by far the best we have on the court. That includes being far ahaed of even the other consevative justices , certainly lightyears ahead of the liberal ones. -Tyr

[aboutime]

I believe he is by far the best we have on the court. That includes being far ahaed of even the other consevative justices , certainly lightyears ahead of the liberal ones. -Tyr

Tyr. Totally agree about Scalia. Unfortunately. He, and a few others will eventually be facing their retirement years. Hopefully. Those retirements, or God forbid, health situations, or untimely deaths do not occur while Obama has any possibility of being in office.
I honestly believe. Obama, with the Law breaker, and Constitutional law joker Holder would try to pull another FDR trick in trying to Increase the number of sitting Justices in the SCOTUS.

I put nothing, and I do mean NOTHING past Obama, Holder, Biden, or Pelosi. All of them could become conspirators in the destruction of this nation, and nobody in Washington would have the BALLS to fight them.