READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Coming up this evening at 9 p.m., "Piers Morgan Tonight" sits down with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Washington D.C. for an exclusive sit-down interview.
Scalia is one of the most powerful and polarizing people in America. CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained to Morgan why the justice is an extraordinary and important figure. "Single handedly, he [Scalia] changed the understanding of the Constitution in the United States," Toobin explained. "His theory is now the law."
Joining Scalia will be Professor Bryan A. Garner, Scalia's co-author of the new book, "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts."
Tune in this evening at 9 p.m. for the hour-long interview with "the most important Supreme Court justice of the last 30 years, maybe 50 years."
• Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
Having worked for the government, I can tell you that government workers are supposed to devote their day to government business, not personal projects like writing books. So I hope Piers will ask Justice Scalia how much time, if any, he spent working on the new book while on the government's payroll. I am hoping the answer is "none," but I would be surprised if that were true. In any event, from an integrity standpoint, the air needs to be cleared.
Richard, why do you ask "Having worked for the government, I can tell you that government workers are supposed to devote their day to government business, not personal projects like writing books."
Do you have some unique insight as to between what hours the book was written? No? Please.
If I knew the answer, I would not ask the question. But my impression of Scalia is that he does not pay much attention to ethics and finds that rules that apply to others do not apply to him. Judges have more flexible work hours than other government employees, but there is still a distinction between working hours and personal time. Books should be written on personal time, not government time. I want to know if Scalia did his book on personal time or government time.
I thought the most important person to be interviewed was the Chief Justice.
Piers, The integrity of court has come under question lately with certain justices socializing with subjects who will have cases who come before the court for example heath insurance companies. Can you ask the judge if that's appropriate behavior for a supreme court judge and should their be sanctions placed upon those judges who seemingly don't care what the public might think of them.
Ask Scalia whether he knows that a mature ego does not behave as he does. He carries on like a pre-adolescent who needs attention.
Thomas White...your a moron! If anyone is a pre-adolescent is you! Scalia is a man that I would want to be a member of my family. Thoughtful, warm, incredibly intelligent and funny. I don't know many of his decisions but I know that I would trust him to be thorough and honest. Oh Ya...nblucero...blow me!
My question would be:
You decry, I think reasonably, the use of the Congressional Record and the intent of legislators when interpreting law. How does that jive with originalism, or being a textualist, which (I think) seeks to understand what the words and text reasonably meant at the time, through use of the Federalist Papers, etc. Are those not in opposition?
Justice Scalia on Freedom of Speech: the more money you have, the more freedom of speech you have.
Doesn't sound democratic to me.
Piers interview with Scalia was awful. Understandably Piers was exercising great restraint in respect, but Scalia is a dinosaur and needs to be exposed for his antiquated views. The Federalist Papers? It was written 350 years ago. Scalia is a FRAUD. can this sleaze bag apply the Federalist Papers to issues we encounter today? His poor wife is long and suffering. piers, the interview sucked.
Evidently you don't understand how this works. The Supreme Court interprets and applies the law of the land. Period. They are not supposed to make it up as they go. If we don't like it, then there are mechanisms in place to change the laws. If you are looking for dynasaurs, don't look further than our Congress. Until we educate everybody, we are doomed to keep on electing idiots to the legislature, and the Supreme Court will continue to be stuck with whatever is on the books.
I support the decision on RoeVWade but not for the reasons that one might think. The basis of the argument is that there was a contract (Marriage) in which the idea was that they would both raise the child. He broke the contract with his infidelity. That gave her the right to abort the pregnancy. It has since been misinterpreted as a womens rights issue. It is my position that this ruling has allowed both men and women to be irresponsible, given that most people in this country know, and have the ability, to prevent pregnancy. If a woman has a child out of wedlock, she has the right to have the father support the child. If she wants to abort the pregnancy, the father has the right to prevent it through the court system. It is my position that if a woman does nothing to prevent the pregnancy, she must have the child and if the father can be proven, he must support the child regardless if she keeps it. The REASON for the ruling, not the ruling itself of RoeVWad,e must be changed.
Overall, your interview with Justice Scalia was okay and he seems to be a likable guy.
However, there were so many questions not asked.
Additionally, it was both stunning and disappointing to hear Justice Scalia say that [those American citizens reporting official corruption and high crime in government] are either "making it up or are violating a confidence, which means that person is not reliable."
Justice Scalia's reasoning explains why egregious official retaliation against government whistleblowers seldom gets to a jury trial and due process is denied. It further explains why official corruption and high crime in government is the new normal in America and no one can or will stop it.
Please pass on my comment to Justice Scalia.
Scalia was not talking about whistle blowers, as you seem to think. He was talking about spurious media reports, such as his alleged "feud" with Roberts, and the sources of them.
History repeats itself.
Piers: it was good to see that you meat you match when try put your point across. He was one person that you could not bully. Good on him.
Piers, great show last night. Justice Scalia was wonderful and your questions were right on.
I was glued to the TV. Great Job!.
Why doesn't Piers go back to Great Britain to face the crimes associated with Rupert Murdock? Why does anyone listen to this NWO shill, he is not even a US citizen and knows nothing about this country. Turn the the or the TV off...he is pure evil.
Notify me of new comments via email.