U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers a lecture on the clash between international and state law that is inherent in globalization. He explores historical precedents, and discusses the best and the worst ways of implementing international law.
Bio
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960-1961.
He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961-1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967-1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977-1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University.
He was chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law, 1981-1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982-1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971-1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972-1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974-1977.
He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
Process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around the world. Factors that have contributed to globalization include increasingly sophisticated communications and transportation technologies and services, mass migration and the movement of peoples, a level of economic activity that has outgrown national markets through industrial combinations and commercial groupings that cross national frontiers, and international agreements that reduce the cost of doing business in foreign countries. Globalization offers huge potential profits to companies and nations but has been complicated by widely differing expectations, standards of living, cultures and values, and legal systems as well as unexpected global cause-and-effect linkages. See alsofree trade.
It's tough. I don't think judges should have the power to basically create laws. At the same time, I think we might very well still have "separate but equal" if it weren't for judges shoving it down peoples' throats.
You missed Justice Scalia's points completely. Additonally, your emotion charged declarations regarding what rights we deserve would make any tyrant envious.
1. The United States Constitution is silent on Abortion. Therefore, Amendment X, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, as Justice Scalia believes, debate an issue, try to persuade your fellow citizens and then put it up to a vote. Why is this democratic principle so radical to you? You prefer an unelected judge to determine issues of this significance where the people are divided? Since the Federal Constitution is silent, on what basis would this judge decide? Purely OPINION. Your arguement holds no water regarding the core issue of abortion. It is just your OPINION. Of the 300 million+ citizens in the United States, there are OPINIONS that differ from yours.
2. Again, your bold pronouncement on what issue is at stake regarding physician assisted suicide is simply your OPINION. Since the Federal Constituion is silent on this issue, Amendment X holds sway. (Aguably, 14th Ammendment Issues could be debated) The issue is far more complex than you make it out to be.
3. The United States Constitution does not mention the word "marriage," and thus the Supreme Court is not the place to settle this issue. The homosexual marriage issue is another one where a judge's OPINION, with no basis in Law, should not be substituted for a democratic debate and vote. Surely you understand that no one is free to marry whomever he wishes, don't you? We have marriage laws of many kinds, from blood relative laws, to age restrictions, to polygamy bans, to beastiality laws, etc., etc., etc. If a group wished to change these, how would they do it? They would advocate for the position, make the case and get it on the ballot, as they have with homosexual marriage in 31 states now, which have all voted down homosexual marriage.
You seem to have an erroneous notion that if the United States Constitution does not ban something, it is permitted. I urge you to read the Constitution cover to cover and even more importantly, to read and study The Federalist, which gives the arguements the Founders made for the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution is a short, brilliant document that safeguards our individual liberty and keeps government in the peoples' hands. These are fascinating reads and really open your eyes to the structure of our government and the dangers to individual liberty that come when government inserts its influence into areas they have no authority to be in. Judges are "government" too and must be restrained and kept in check to safeguard our liberty. Remember, not all judicial decisions, if arrived at by a judge's personal OPINION only, with no basis in law, will be for the good or the way you believe it should.
ethorson,
Your notion of "human rights" and that of the United Nations and the EU countries is indeed one of "negotiable human rights." Unelected bureaucrats got together and made a list of things THEY felt should be "human rights" - they negotiated them. Have you read the United Nations Declaration on "Human Rights?" This is tyranny in its most artistic, absurd form. Justice Scalia's point is that he does not have the authority or wisdom to create rights or declare that rights exist when he is acting as a judge. Judges can be among the most tyrannical of all government personnel. He knows this and warns against it. Those who are unable to convince their fellow citizens of the rightness of a cause, whether they be business issues, moral issues, political or other legal issues, often "shop" jurisdictions to find the most tyrannical of judges, who believe their OPINION is the last word on these and other very divisive, important issues, without any basis in the laws they are required by oath to uphold. Justice Scalia is not in his position to give his personal opinions on Constitutional issues, he is to determine whether or not the issues before him and the assertions made by the advocates and opponents have the Constitution on their side.
This is a judge that only a social barbarian could love. He seems to support negotiable "human rights". He seems very content with evil as many social barbarians seem to be. His opinions are poisonous to human social growth and personal freedom. It is just too bad that people like him hold office for life. To use such an intellect as his for such awful purposes is truly disgusting.
Sorry, but I think Scalia is a neo-con numbskull. Why should "natural law" be dictated by the tyranny of the majority? 200 years ago his majority endorsed the "natural law" of slavery.
1) Abortion is the right of a woman over her own body to determine her own reproduction. Where is it written in our Constitution that the "tyranny of the majority" has the right to force her to have an unwanted baby? (BTW, U.S. crime rates have dropped dramatically last 20 years due to Roe v. Wade)
2) Assisted suicide should also be a free choice between a person and their doctor. Who gave the "tyranny of the majority" any right to interfere?
3) If people of the same sex love each other, where is it written in the Constitution that the "tyranny of the majority" can criminalize their love or prevent them from getting married?
These are all basic human rights.
Scalia's disregard of individual human rights is shameful.
Justice Scalia is brilliant as always. I believe that Europe's history of aristocracies and monarchies has embedded in their psyche that there are some among us that have the requisite wisdom, intellect and moral virtue to tell others how they must live, and that whether or not they are elected by the people, or govern by their consent, they should be permitted to do so.
The differences between the American concept of "rights" is so radically different than that of European concept.
Thank you Fora.tv for posting this excellent event.
member. 
