Antonin Scalia Didn’t Let His Own Opinion Interfere With His Sense of Justice

Even on hot-button issues, he always sided with the Constitution. On today’s show, journalist and editor Ed Whalen shared some stories about the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and talked about the new book, “Scalia Speaks,” which compiles some of the justice’s greatest speeches.

“It’s a real treasure trove of Justice Scalia’s thoughts,” Whalen said. “Not just on law, but on faith, on learning, on life.”

One example of Scalia’s emphasis of rule of law and the Constitution was his opinion on flag-burning, which he said was protected speech under the First Amendment – even though he personally hated that decision.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I can't think of a time in American history, in the -- in my lifetime, that it's been harder to find a man who will stand up for what is right even against all odds and stand up because it is right, even if it hurts him. I've never experienced a time in my life where it is more important to zoom out and look at the big principles as opposed to zooming in and seeing the daily squabbles.

And that's what we want to do here in this segment.

STU: Yeah, there's a new book called Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well-Lived. Antonin Scalia is certainly a guy that represents what you're talking about.

And the book is by -- one of the coeditors is Ed Whelan. You've probably read his stuff online with National Review. And the book just came out. And Ed joins us now.

GLENN: Hey, Ed, this is a collection of speeches. Some of them were unknown that he gave?

ED: That's right, Glenn. Actually, almost all of them had never been published anywhere before. It's a real treasure trove of Justice Scalia's thoughts, not just on law, but on faith, on learning, on life. I think everyone will find it just a delight.

GLENN: So, Ed, could you find any place -- as you were looking at his speeches and you were looking at his life, could you find any place to where you think he was deeply conflicted in the sense that he didn't want to make a decision or didn't want to do something, but because he believed in the Constitution, he did make that tough choice?

ED: Well, he made it quite clear that one example of that is on the matter of flag-burning. That, you know, he made the decisive vote back in the late '80s, holding that laws that specifically target flag-burning violate the First Amendment. He makes it quite clear, that if he had his way, you know, hippie flag burners would be tossed in jail. So that's just one example.

Lots of areas of criminal procedure are another. And then even on the hot-button issues. That are so contested. It's important to recognize that his position was that these were matters left to the democratic processes to decide one way or another. He did not, unlike folks on the left, misread the Constitution, to impose his supposed views on say abortion or marriage.

GLENN: One of the things that is going on right now is this idea that our rights come from God and not the government. And it seems bizarre at how many people believe that somehow or another, that rights don't come from God. That they do come from a man-made source.

Did you find anything where he was talking about that?

ED: Oh, absolutely. It recurs throughout his speeches. His recognition that our founding principles recognize that our rights come from God. And the Constitution sets up a structure that's designed to protect and fulfill those rights. Absolutely. That's at the very heart of his understanding of what America is.

And I would just add that on this Columbus Day, you know, what better opportunity to highlight the first Italian American justice, a justice who celebrated that one could both be Italian American and be 100 percent American. It's a beautiful speech that he gave just a month after he got on the court, where he talks about what makes an American. Says, no matter your blood, your place of birth, what makes it is embracing the principles of this country. And I'm afraid we see too many people abandoning those principles, in your example of believing that rights are whatever government confers are just one example.

STU: Yeah, Ed, it's amazing on Columbus Day today, where they have security around the Columbus statue, has now become some big controversy. Where Scalia in 2005 was able to become the grand marshal of the Columbus Day parade. Which was a really big deal to him.

ED: It was a huge deal. He just delighted in it. He had marched in the parade when he was a junior ROTC in Xavier High School in Manhattan. And as he said decades later, this is the top of the hill, to be grand marshal in your hometown. For an Italian kid from Queens, there could be no greater thrill than to march one last time as grand marshal of the Columbus Day Parade.

So he took great pride in being Italian American. But, again, he emphasized he wasn't a partial American. He and other Italian Americans could be fully American, precisely because they embraced the American creed.

GLENN: So as you look at today's landscape, do you see many people like him?

ED: He is in many respects, one of a kind. At the same time, he has a tremendous legacy in the law clerks, law students, lawyers he has influenced. So I think in the legal realm. We are very much living in a legal world that is defined around Justice Scalia. And many folks define themselves against him. But many others define themselves with him. And I think you see in Justice Gorsuch's selection and confirmation, just one of the many great legacies of Justice Scalia.

I think we see from the book that is Justice Scalia the man in full? The man -- a deep man -- a man of deep faith. A man who recognized that the ultimate test of life is to live out one's faith properly. It's a beautiful speech called The Christian Is Cretin (phonetic), meant ironically, that spells that out.

But, again, one of the key points he makes throughout the book in so many speeches is that his obligation as a faithful Catholic is to not misconstrue the Constitution and other laws, to indulge his views. His very obligation as a Catholic means that he -- that he shall not misread the Constitution. As he put it, the only commandment of his faith that really bore on his judging was, thou shall not lie. Thou shall not lie about the meaning of the Constitution or of other laws.

STU: Ed -- we're talking to Ed Whelan, he's the author of Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and a Life Well-Lived.

The book itself is really, as you kind of pointed out, is his whole world. Right? It's him as an individual person. His faith, his life, and the legal stuff.

He entered into my thinking over the last week, however, as it relates to the tragedy in Las Vegas. And, you know, obviously the response to that has been largely, which ways will we further infringe our right to bear arms?

And it feels like -- I was interested to see if you had perspective on what Scalia believed, not only on something like this, where you have bump stocks, for example, to potentially be banned, but also the automatic weapons ban itself. What was his line when it came to where that right to bear arms stopped?

ED: Well, we have his opinion in DC versus Heller. And, you know, I think it's far-fetched for somebody on the other side to try to claim some other connection between this and the horrible incident last week.

I think it's more relevant to recognize that Justice Scalia drawing on the Framers saw that virtue in the citizenry was essential to the survival of this country.

And when you have -- you know, just a deep collapse in -- in morals and respect for life, you know, that's going to lead to some very bad things.

So I don't know what his -- his particular, you know, views might have been on gun policy or these bump stocks, whatever these are called. But, you know, the ruling in DC versus Heller was regarding a much narrower -- and I think, again, this fellow who committed a massacre certainly violated gun law after gun law. It would be a non sequitur to discuss that the absence of gun laws was a problem.

GLENN: Ed, how is Gorsuch going to -- how is he fitting these shoes?

ED: Well, Justice Gorsuch made it quite clear that he's dedicated to originalism. He's the first justice who is educated at law school, at a time when Scalia had influenced what law is, what constitutional interpretation is. I think that's a significant fact. I am very hopeful that Justice Scalia -- excuse me -- Justice Gorsuch will be a supremely fit successor to Justice Scalia. He's starting out very well so far, and his record on the Tenth Circuit I think speaks very highly of his abilities.

GLENN: Ed, thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

(music)

STU: Ed Whelan. The book is Scalia Speaks: Reflections of Law, Faith, and a Life Well-Lived. That's available everywhere now. And he's also with the National Review and the Ethics on Public Policy Center.

GLENN: Garbage in, garbage out. Make sure everything that you're reading, everything you're doing, you're putting in really good basic information and fuel into your mind. And this is a good place to start.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.