shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

State of Civil Liberties

1
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
2,786 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Edosa Eweka Avatar
Edosa Eweka
Posts: 2
Posted: 10.21.10, 07:02 AM
I do not concur with these three observations - Stossen makes her arguments based on the previous opinion of judges (or justices), therefore on past precedents - which in most cases are interpretations of the law removed from its original intention. Justice Scalia on the other hand makes his arguments based on the originality of the law or the context in which the law was originally made. In no way was Scalia defensive - indeed he paused before he answered questions, so as to word them they way he intends, particularly when it required subtle distinctions. In fact, Stossen fillibustred a lot, particularly when the premise of her arguments fell apart.
Permalink
savageb Avatar
savageb
Posts: 67
Posted: 10.19.06, 01:08 PM
I also agree. It was a lively debate. Stossen gives Scalia a run for his money. She openly addresses Scalia's past decisions and stances on issues unabashedly. Scalia contradicts himself constantly, in the issues of religion concerning the Smith case and on the Ten Commandments. He has trouble backing his opinions and becomes very defensive instead of supplying concrete examples and proof.
Permalink
GrantIsis Avatar
GrantIsis
Posts: 2
Posted: 10.19.06, 01:02 PM
I have to agree with you on this, Kid. Not that I disagree with Scalia's opinions, but he doesn't necessarily back his opinions on what law and judgement is with his avoidance of strong and important questions like rights of criminals and terrorists and his brushing aside of different religions after he talked about how religion is so important that it's a foundation of this country.
Permalink
TheKid Avatar
TheKid
Posts: 27
Posted: 10.19.06, 12:15 PM
He loves to pretend that law is this finite idea and that it's set in stone. He loves to believe that the constitution can't be evolving and he has to decipher what the forefathers meant by what they wrote, but he starts off the whole discussion saying that he interpretted the constitution a certain way. Having to interpret the Constitution flies directly in the face of the idea that the Constitution and law can't evolve and must mean something specific. He bends his words to back up his own opinions and his crazy remarks about the Ten Commandments and how these differences among different religions and sects aren't relevant makes me angry that this man is who supplies "justice" for America. He is a sick and twisted man. Charismatic, but he is exactly what he says a Judge shouldn't be, an arbiter of truth that has his own opinion and changing the climate of the people because of his own take on law.

Post moderated due to offensive language.
Permalink
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Israel's Current Coalition Government Israel's Current Coalition Government
01:23:22 min | 1,656 Views
Confronting Terrorism Confronting Terrorism
01:45:15 min | 3,577 Views
Society After 9/11 Society After 9/11
01:15:49 min | 1,801 Views
911 Plus 5: 9-11 Organizations Five Years Later 911 Plus 5: 9-11 Organizations Five Years Later
01:22:45 min | 2,033 Views
Prince Turki al-Faisal Prince Turki al-Faisal
00:52:23 min | 6,071 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement