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.

On the Basis of Sex. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you probably didn't expect those five words to come out of me this morning. No, that's not my version of a clickbait headline to get you to pay attention — although that probably just happened — but this is the title to the new movie based on the life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

RELATED: Here's the Problem With the New Ruth Bader Ginsburg Documentary

Progressives and liberals have been hovering over YouTube like a pack of rabid wolves, anxiously awaiting the first trailer to drop. And — three days — they got their wish. Something in the last few seconds caught my ear. Watch:

Now my first thought after hearing that went something like this: The word "freedom" is literally the fifth frigging word in the first sentence of the First Amendment. It shows up for the second time just two sentences later. How do you screw that up? I always assumed that liberal Hollywood movie makers had never really read the Constitution, but this is just sad.

But my second thought was that maybe they don't consider the Bill of Rights actually part of the Constitution. However, according to the National Constitution Center, the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution — not a separate document — when it was ratified in 1791. This is rather easy to fact check, so there's really no excuse here.

But then I had another thought. Either liberal Hollywood forgot that the Constitution changed in 1791, or they actually prefer the vaguer pre-1791 version of the Constitution where God-given rights can be excluded if the state so pleases. Think about it. The Bill of Rights is the single greatest roadblock to the radical Left's "progress." Do you hate the fact that private gun ownership encourages self reliance and personal freedom? Do you also hate the fact that dissenting views, opinions and speech can't be silenced and crushed? Then the Bill of Rights is a clear and present danger to your agenda. It's enemy number one.

The new Left that is radically moving toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791.

You see, the new Left that is radically moving further toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791. They wish it never happened. The Bill of Rights is a constant reminder that some FREEDOMS can't be given by the government, they're granted by GOD. And that thought — you being aware of that — scares the hell out of them.

Now, it's possible I thought too much into this. It's also possible the screen writer made a simple mistake and thought Ruth Bader Ginsburg was actually born before 1791, figuring it would be a nice tip of the hat to her longevity. I can actually see how you could make that mistake. But it's also possible that this is a sign of the times we live in.

The Bill of Rights is under attack, maybe more now than ever. It's never been more important to let the Constitution of 1791 be our guide, true north and lighthouse.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

How did this slip by?

The Left has been foaming at the mouth waiting for this movie to drop and when the trailer finally hit the interwebs, it ended with an embarrassing factual error about the Constitution.

What will happen when the Titan kneels?

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

You can tell that the NFL season is approaching because you can hear the whining from highly-paid athletes as they prepare their kneepads for some kneeling.

In May, the NFL instated a policy that penalizes players who take a knee during the national anthem.

RELATED: VIRTUE SIGNALLING: It's time for the NFL to dump the politics

"A club will be fined by the League if its personnel are on the field and do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem," the statement said. "The Commissioner will impose appropriate discipline on league personnel who do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem."

Tennessee Titan's defensive end Jurrell Casey has decided that he will continue his whining and kneeling.

"I'm going to take my fine," Casey said in an interview. "It is what it is, I ain't going to let them stop me from doing what I want to do. If they want to have these battles between players and organizations, this is the way it's going to be."

Maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics.

He added that "At the end of the day, we got to do a job, but I will continue to use my platform to keep on speaking up."

Yes, he does have a job to do. And that job is playing football. His bosses have made it clear that political activism is not part of the job. Who knows, maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics. There's also Starbucks. They need a self-righteous CEO.

All anyone can talk about right now is Russia and collusion, and for good reason. Special Counsel Robert Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for cyber attacks and the hacking of cyber-systems in energy, nuclear, water, and manufacturing sectors which you can read about here.

RELATED: There are three tribes when it comes to Trump and Russia: Which tribe do you belong to?

The Trump-Russia scandal, in a word, is maniacal. There are many moving parts that are very hard to solve — or simply don't want to be solved. All of these are "mysteries wrapped in an enigma," asserted Glenn on Wednesday's episode of "The Glenn Beck Radio Program."



From the curious case of Imran Awan to the hacking of DNC servers to "Russian" meddling in elections via social media, all of these deserve scrutiny.

On today's episode, Glenn examined seven scandals that make up the Russia connection:

  1. Russian operatives who used social media to divide Americans during the 2016 election.
  2. The meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
  3. The Fusion GPS Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
  4. Voter fraud in Illinois.
  5. Hillary Clinton's emails.
  6. Imran Awan. Awan was an IT staffer for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who was part of a federal investigation and was arrested on bank fraud charges.
  7. Lastly, the 2016 DNC email leaks.

For the entire explanation, tune into the podcast below:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn Beck argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.

Tribe one is the #Resistance. They are the ones who believe that everything President Trump does is bad. They're also the ones who call for impeachment and who label President Trump a "treasonous traitor" even before a summit with a foreign leader takes place.

RELATED: Russia hacking Hillary's emails is no laughing matter

Those, according to Glenn's analysis, include groups like Think Progress, who published an article suggesting that women's rights would be rolled back if the President's SCOTUS nominee is confirmed by the Senate. This tribe also includes progressive talking heads and far Left publications and politicians like The New York Times and Hillary Clinton.

Tribe two are those who defend the President and his actions at all costs. He can do no wrong. These are the people who deny the President's mistakes. They believe the President is a master chess player and everyone else is a pawn in Trump's game.

Both who operate in tribes one and two maintain a "win at all costs" mentality. They don't care what happens as long as their side wins. Glenn calls this a "cult of personality madness."

Tribe three are those who are "free thinkers." These people question the President with boldness and aim for intellectual honesty when evaluating the President's policies and behavior.

Glenn believes tribe one and tribe two are smaller than tribe three.

So, what do all these tribes have to do with Trump and the Russians? Find out in the clip below.

Where do you fall when it comes to Trump and Russia?

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.