tv Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia Ruth Bader Ginsburg CSPAN February 13, 2016 8:50pm-10:01pm EST
legislature. [laughter] they can make comments and pass second on. when it pass it a second time, it becomes law. there are very few countries, and that have a separate executive president. most of them, it is the tool of the parliament. there is never series this agreement, and when there is, they kick him out. new one.int a we are so different from the rest of the world. elsehas more than anything preserved our liberties. you would not want to live in most of the countries of the world that have a bill of rights that guarantees freedom of speech and the press. you would not want to live there. justice ginsburg: i have to disagree with my colleague. marvin kalb: i am glad you can do it. i can't. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i don't think the rest of the world is
regarding our legislature at the current moment as a model to be followed. [laughter] [applause] and second, however was understood at the beginning, the government was to protect our liberties, but there was always the idea -- when i think about the declaration of it is truee, also that the great protection the press now has came rather late. the first amendment was developed in a serious way around the time of the first world war it began. so the freedom that is enjoyed today, freedom to speak and write, it was not a big ticket item in the supreme court until
rather late. justice scalia: it was a big ticket item mostly because, until the middle of the 20th , it was not thought that the bill of rights applied to the states. it was only a limitation on what the federal government could do, not a limitation on what the states could do. that is why we never had until the middle of the 20th century these cases about whether you can have a creche in the city square. is it ok if you have a menorah, maybe a santa claus on top. [laughter] we did not have any of those silly cases. it was only when the bill of rights was imposed upon the states that we began to have them. a lot of their search to we have on speech that would be imposed by states would not have been thought to violate our bill of
rights, maybe the states bill of rights, but not ours. marvin kalb: i'm wondering at the time that the structure of government was set up close to 200 years ago, what is it that the founding fathers had in mind when they thought about freedom , and one definition advanced by john stuart mill i found very compelling, but i do not know whether that is what they had in mind. he spoke about absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical, speculative, scientific, or theological. i am wondering if that is what madison and monroe had in mind at that time, or whether they had a more narrow vision of freedom. justice ginsburg? justice ginsburg: i would not call it narrow, but there are no absolute rights, even though you -- if you read the first amendment it sounds that way. it says, shall pass no law.
-- congress shall pass no law. of course, there are laws that congress can pass. so the idea of an absolute right , i do not know any right that does not have limitations. marvin kalb: even at that time in the minds of the founders? justice ginsburg: i think so. marvin kalb: explain why in the first amendment after listing the phrase, freedom of speech the founding fathers on the , necessary or wanted to add four crucially important words "or of the press." freedom of the press is what they were talking about. why did they add that phrase? why was it necessary, justice scalia? justice scalia: i think it is a , natural addition. it means the freedom to speak and to write. it was not referring to the institutional press, the guy that runs around with a fedora hat with a sticker that says "press," i am not sure that they even referred to the institutional press in those
days. the freedom to speak and to publish. and that clause has been interpreted, not to get any special prerogatives to the institutional press. it gives prerogatives to anybody who has a xerox machine. [laughter] marvin kalb: what do you mean, institutional press cannot , forgive me? what does that mean? justice scalia: i mean those organizations whose is this is writing and publishing -- nbc, cbs, you. [laughter] marvin kalb: i like that. [laughter] justice ginsburg: one idea we did not take from england was the office of the censor, who censored books before they were published, and that was part of putting in this protection of the press, and we have never had it in the united states
anernment, and office -- office of the censor. people in england and the continent think of verdi -- having to put his opera plots -- marvin kalb: i knew you were going to bring in opera plots. [laughter] was it understood that there were limitations on the press back then? justice scalia: yes, it is. on speech and on oral speech and written speech come up with. i told you, libel laws were one thing. marvin kalb: what about the press at the time? what were they thinking about at that time? justice scalia: i do not know that there were any special rules applicable to the press. the press did not have to get permission of a censor to do publish. but neither did anybody else. justice ginsburg: and the press ignored some very important figures, like thomas jefferson.
marvin kalb: yes, indeed, and it was interesting that jefferson , before he became president, spoke very highly of the press . but while he was president he spoke about it as a polluted area, and you cannot believe about anything in any newspaper. justice ginsburg: one thing that epitomizes to me the importance of freedom of speech is in the ballot for america, the right to speak my mind out. that is america to me. justice scalia: i think if you had to pick -- and you probably should not have to -- but if you had to pick one freedom that is the most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech. because democracy means persuading one another and then ultimately voting and the majority rules. you can't run such a system if there is muzzling of one point of view.
so it is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. much more necessary in a democracy than in any other system of government. i guess you can run an effective monarchy without freedom of speech. i do not think you can run an effective democracy without it. marvin kalb: but on this matter , of press freedom, john adams wrote that mankind cannot now be governed without it, nor at present with it. and it seems that the idea of a free press has always been a problem for a succession of american presidents, but in a broader sense, do you feel we could have endured as a democracy from then till now without the free press? what do you think about justice ginsburg? justice ginsburg: i do not think so. i think the press played a tremendously important role as watchdog over what the
government is doing, and that keeps the government from getting too far out of line. because they will be in the limelight. so, yes, there are all kinds of excesses in the press, too, but we have to put up with that, i think, given the alternative. marvin kalb: justice scalia, you want to comment on that issue? justice scalia: no i agree with , that. justice ginsburg: it is hard to keep the freedom of the press because there are many people , who do not like what the press is publishing. there was a cartoon around the time just after the , revolutionary war, and it shows a tory being carted off by the police, and the caption is, "liberty of speech to those who speak the speech of liberty." so the right to speak against
so the right to speak against government, against what is the prevailing view of society, is tremendously important. >> including the right to speak against democracy. do not forget that. some of the biggest fights are whether freedom of speech includes freedom to speak against freedom of speech or against democracy. it is possible. we have rejected that view. communists were entitled to say this democratic system does not work, let's get rid of it. >> that took a good while for that idea, because there were laws against anarchy and sedition. >> it takes us perhaps i think to the 1964 ruling of the supreme court on "the new york times" v. sullivan.
you spoke about libel. in this particular ruling, very specific regulation -- that is the wrong word -- but concepts are written into this ruling. i would like to read what justice brennan as said, because i think it deserves to be quoted as often as possible. "public discussion is a political duty, and it must be uninhibited, robust, and wide open and may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." you were mentioning this in a sense a moment ago. i am wondering, justice scalia, if this kind of an issue were brought before the court today, at that time, in 1964, i believe the court's ruling was a unanimous vote and what would happen today? >> i do not recall whether it was unanimous.
i'm not sure it was. >> it was, it was 9-0. [laughter] >> i stand corrected. even so, it was wrong. [laughter] the issue is not whether it is a good idea to let the institutional -- i'm sorry, to let anybody -- what the case holds is if you are in public figure and it is a matter of some doubt what it takes to become a public figure -- but certainly any politician is a public figure -- if you are a public figure, you cannot sue somebody for libel unless you can prove that effectively that the person knew it was a lie. so long as he heard from somebody, it makes it very difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit.
i think george washington, i think thomas jefferson, i think the framers would have been appalled at the notion that they could be libeled with impunity. when the supreme court came out with that decision, it was revising the constitution. it might be a good idea to set up a system that way him and new york state could have revised its libel laws by popular vote to say them if you libel a public figure, it is ok, unless it is malicious. but new york state did not do that. it was nine lawyers who decided that is what the constitution ought to mean even though it had never meant that. that is the difference between ruth and me between a living constitution. she thinks that is all right and i did not.
>> the situation did not exist in 1787 or 1791, that the court confronted in "times" vs. sullivan. it was a sheriff who said he was libeled in an advertisement in "the new york times." it was in the midst of the civil rights era, where libel laws could be used as a way of -- the people who were asserting their freedom. i think that "times" against sullivan is an issue of major significance. i will say that the lawyer who argued that case for "the new york times," a great constitutional law scholar, when the story is told, we won, we won unanimously, the response was a little hesitant.
he said that it is great for "the new york times," but what about all those -- i do not know -- papers that do not have high standards? but i think that "times" against sullivan is now well accepted, and i quite disagree with my colleague. i suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in america in the 1960's they would have agreed with that. >> so you would have voted for it? >> god, yes, she would have voted for it.
[laughter] >> i will not say anything more about it, because this is a case we are going to hear next week, i think. a state has passed a law that says thou shalt not make false statements in a political campaign against any candidate, any ballot initiative, no false statements in the elections. the questions that the court will face is, is that statute prohibiting false statements in political campaigns -- is that constitutional. >> what are we going to expect on that? [laughter] >> decision by the end of june. >> there is another justice is in, and i do not remember where justice scalia was, but it was the alvarez case, the man who
about having the medal of honor-- >> oh, yes. >> something valor. >> stolen valor act. >> before we get into that, i would like to take a moment now to remind our radio, television, and internet viewers and listener that this is "the kalb report," and i'm discussing freedom of the press with justices antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. i want to point out that there is a new report out by an organization called reporters without borders, very highly regarded. the u.s. has experienced a profound erosion of press freedom in 2013, dropping 14 point to number 46 in global rankings. reporters are a little nervous
these days, and they like to feel that they have friends. i want to know in your judgment whether reporters are right in considering the supreme court today as a friend of the concept of freedom of the press. justice scalia? >> you want me to say no to that? [laughter] of course, everybody on the court believes in freedom of the press. there is some difference as to what that means, ok? as to whether it means, for example, that a member of the press, no matter what the national emergency may be, need not disclose his or her source. that is a question that has not come up before us, and i think it is very -- a very interesting and not necessarily -- not a question with a clear answer. so you can believe in freedom of the press and still have fun disagreeing. >> i would like to know how it was determined that that was -- that 46 was -- i was just thinking of the tradition in england, which holds to this very day, that --
>> i would like to know how it was determined that 46 was the right view. i'm thinking of the tradition in england, what we are told this very day, that the press can't report about ongoing trials. >> and they can libel public figures. >> since 1964 and the sullivan-"new york times" case, it's very difficult for anyone to libel a reporter on this issue. what i would like to get here is something that is current and very important to a lot of people in this country. i suspect the court is going to face a number of major decisions in the area of government surveillance, the national security agency, the nsa, it's newly disclosed activity, and all of the problems of whistleblowing journalism.
it is worth noting the "washington post" this week won a pulitzer prize for his reporting on edward snowden and the nsa leaks. i would like to start by asking you do you think they deserve the prize? justice ginsburg? >> that's a question the journalists in the audience are much better equipped to answer that i am. >> i don't read "the post" so i have no idea what they got the prize for. [laughter] >> i do, including the announcement at the bottom of the first page where it says what's coming up this week. it was announced as an event. >> they are very proud of that. i didn't get to it before, do you believe snowden is a whistleblower or traitor?
>> i don't -- that's not part of what i worry about, really. that is a policy question, not a legal question. i stay out of that stuff. >> it's also possible, is it not, that the question you raise could come before the court. >> that is possible. >> and we are not at liberty to preview. >> i appreciate that. let me ask the question from another angle. [laughter] >> it the same question, you are to get the same answer. [laughter] >> but i'm going to try it anyway. [laughter]
if somebody were to say to you that what i'm doing, you may disagree with, i don't mean you personally, you may all disagree with, but i am doing this because i feel a moral obligation to do this will stop i feel deep in my heart my country is doing something wrong and i have an opportunity to change that. >> so did the germans who killed jews. is that the criteria? whether you honestly believe what you're doing is good? you have an obligation to form your conscience according to what is right. that's the issue. the issue is whether it's right, not whether you believe it. i'm sure hitler was very sincere. >> but the idea of it being right, you mean right according to the law as established? >> in the context you have what it, in the context, right according to --
>> some moral judgment. >> to the 10 commandments. [laughter] >> we brought up the point before about hateful speech. there was a case some many years ago involving the town of skokie, illinois, where many holocaust survivors live and do not see party decided they were going to take that town for the demonstration. the case never came to the u.s. supreme court, but other federal courts said the demonstration is going to be peaceful, there will be police detection, we don't anticipate any violence.
this group wants to march, we hate what they say, but we believe in their freedom to say it. >> but that doesn't mean it was good for them to say it or write for them to say it. it sometimes annoys me that when someone has made outrageous statements that are hateful, somebody says, sometimes the press will say he's just exercising his first amendment rights. like they are muscles, the more you use them, they are the batter, and it doesn't matter what purpose you are using them for. you can be using your first amendment rights and it can be abominable you are using your first amendment rights. i will defend your right to use it, but i will not defend the appropriateness or manner in which you are using it now. that could be very wrong. >> justice scalia, praised by some and criticized by others for his decision the flagburning case. i imagine you thought the act itself was reprehensible. >> i would have sent that guy to jail if i was king. [laughter] >> but by your ruling, he had the right to burn the flag? >> that's what the first amendment means.
you have your right to express her contempt for the government. it doesn't mean by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many people that it was right, but he had the right to do it. >> justice scalia, at a recent event in brooklyn, your recorded as saying the supreme court should not be deciding matters of national security and you are quoted as saying "the supreme court does not note diddly about the nature of the threat -- >> did i say diddly? [laughter] >> it's truly stupid the court will be the last word on it." did you say that?
>> i probably did. i certainly believe it. [laughter] >> i don't think we have a choice. the court doesn't decide whether to pick this area and straighten it out today. there are petitions for review and if there is a law the government says was violated and the other side says no, the government can't engage in that kind of surveillance, if that comes to us, we can't run away and say we don't know much about that, so we won't decide it. >> this related to the fourth amendment, not the fifth amendment. the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. the first time my court had a case involving wiretapping, it held the way the fourth amendment reads is the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. against unreasonable searches and seizures.
and the court said quite raab early about commerce asians are not persons, houses, papers and effects. wiretapping may be a bad thing, states have laws against it, but does not violate the federal constitution, all right? about 20 years later, during the war in court, we did a 180 degree turn and said there are penumbras and emanations and conversations are covered by this vague right of privacy contained in the constitution. that is the living constitution, changing what the text said and what it meant. the consequence i was pointing out in that, the consequence of that is that now the institution of the government that is going to decide is -- this highly significant nsa question about what information can you get by wiretapping?
the institution that will survive that is the institution least qualified to decide. it will be my court. it is a question of balancing the emergency against the intrusion, when the emergency is high enough, you can have a higher intrusion. that's why we all get searched when we boarded airplane. that's a terrible intrusion. we know nothing about the degree of the risk will stop nothing at all. the executive knows, the congress knows, we don't know anything and we are going to be the one to decide that question. >> so what do we do in the case comes to us? before you answer that, i would like to remind everybody in the
wiretapping case, the argument that wiretapping was not an unreasonable search or seizure, there was a very strong opinion the other way by justice brandeis. if i were on that court, i would have voted the way he did. i would like to know how justice scalia distinguishes that kind of intrusion by the government. from the decision you made in the heat in missions case, the helicopter that was flying over roofs to test the level of heat because if it was of a certain heat, maybe marijuana plants were growing. helicopter never touched the roof, and yet you said that was a violation of the fourth amendment. that was an unreasonable -- >> because the people were not being secure in their houses from unreasonable search. that is protected by the fourth amendment.
>> you can wiretap someone in their house? >> if you have to break it to their house to wiretap, yes, but if you listen to conversations in the phone booth, intruding upon the right of privacy -- >> we don't have to worry about that anymore. there are no more phone booth. [laughter] >> you are right about that. >> we've gotten away from the fifth amendment, haven't we? >> let's stick with the fourth amendment. i don't know much about it and i acknowledge that up front, but my question is could data that is considered important by the media or by the government stored in a computer or stored in a cloud somewhere be considered effects?
>> that's very perceptive and i thought about that. >> if you thought about that, doesn't it follow that the u.s. government would not be able to justify its nsa surveillance program and therefore conceivably could be in violation of the constitution? because it's not absolute stop as ruth said, there are very few freedoms that are absolute. your person is protected by the fourth amendment on the but as i pointed out, when you board a plane, someone can pass his hands all over your body. that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger it is guarding against, it's not an unreasonable intrusion. it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as if that. that's why i say it's foolish to
have us make the decision because i don't know how serious the danger is in this nsa stuff. >> does the supreme court have the ability to pick up the phone and call somebody at the white house and say i have a question? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. [laughter] we are at the mercy of whatever people happen to bring to us. if they don't ring it to us, we don't know it. >> and we cannot make a decision based on something outside the record of the case. the parties and their lawyers have to know everything, have access to everything we will fact her into our decisions. i don't know how many times i would love to call so and so -- >> call your husband in a tax case? marty was one of the best tax
lawyers and the country. >> but we can't do that because the parties aren't there. those have access to the same information, so we are hemmed in by the record of the case and the court cannot resort to information the parties do not have. >> i want to ask you the same question i asked justice scalia about the data, the storage in computers and linking that to the word effects, and if that justifiably points to the effects, doesn't that follow justifiably that they government is in violation of the constitution by this government surveillance program? >> an argument could be made, certainly. but it is not an argument that either of us could answer. i think justice scalia said we can't answer it at all, but we will answer it if we have to. but we can get questions in the form that you pose them.
we get a concrete case and not an abstract question. what can the government do? >> i would answer that one. that is persons, houses, papers and effects, not conversations. >> you could not answer it in the abstract. >> certainly not. >> can we expect the supreme court to rule on the nsa issue? >> it depends. it will be in a federal district court in and go to the court of appeals. we do have the luxury of not having to decide rings and till they have been decided by other good minds, five judges in the federal trial courts and courts of appeals.
>> and it's not our responsibility to shake of the executive and make sure they are doing what they're supposed to were shaping the congress. that's not our job. our job is to prevent people from being harmed. if nobody is being harmed, we don't get into the matter. even if someone is harmed, and less he comes to us, we don't have any self starting powers. we are at the mercy of whoever wants to bring a case or whoever doesn't want to bring a case will stop ruth and i visited india one time a long time ago. the indian supreme court -- india has a bill of rights which says the apex court, their supreme court will assure the preservation of the liberty set forth in the bill of rights. that court interpreted that to mean that if they are sitting around on a sunday reading the bombay times and they see the police commissioner -- >> mumbai. [applause]
>> i don't say that and i won't say mumbai. we have an english word for it. they say the police officer is holding people without charge. that court will on its own summon the police commissioner to give an account of himself. our court cannot do that. it's only when people bring problems to us. but you can't do it because that's the way it's always been done or there is a rule? >> the constitution limits us to actual cases in controversy. there are courts around the world that do answer abstract general questions. constitutional courts have been set up, the constitutional council in france, that will
preview a law if a certain number of deputies questioned the consistency of the bill with the constitution. the council will look at the bill, just look at the words of the bill, decide whether it's compatible with the constitution, and if the council holds it isn't compatible with the constitution, then the bill never gets enacted. that kind of judicial preview is foreign to us. >> let's talk for a minute or so about televising hearings of the supreme court. other courts do permit television. why not the supreme court? justice scalia? >> when i first came on the court, i was in favor of it. i have long since changed my view on that.
those who want to do it say they want to educate the american people. if i really thought it would educate the american people, i would be in favor of it. indeed, if the american people watched our proceedings from gavel-to-gavel, they would be educated. they would come to realize that although now and then we do these sexy cases, should there be a right to abortion of a should there be a right to suicide, should there be a right to this or that, most of the time, we are not contemplating our naval, engaging in this broad, philosophical, ethical search. most of the time, we are doing real law. we are doing the internal revenue code, the bankruptcy code, really dull stuff. and nobody would ever again come up to me and say justice scalia, why do you have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court question mark they think what we're doing is looking up at the sky and saying should this right or that right exists.
they could guess that as well as i can. now, the problem is for every person who watches us from gavel-to-gavel, there will be 10,000 who will watch a 15 or 30 seconds takeout on the nightly news and i therein to you, that will not be characteristic of what we do. it will be man bites dog. so why should i participate in the miseducation of the american people? >> what about your feelings? >> there's another factor. if you are televising, everything is unfolding before the camera, if you are dealing with an appellate argument, if you would come to our chambers at the moment because we start sitting on monday, you would see
cards with reefs and briefs and briefs. the oral argument in court is the oral argument in court is fleeting. appellateion that an argument is a contest between in the bedroom one will win is a false picture of what the appellate process is. closed told be televising. justice ginsburg: i think it's probably inevitable because there will be so much pressure for it and other courts do it but i would be going much
concerned with ms. portraying what an appeal is. the written part is ever so much more important than the our total in court -- hour total in court. marvin: you have been great friends for a while but when did you meet and how? justice ginsburg: i bet he doesn't know. [laughter] justice ginsburg: we were buddies in the d.c. circuit. marvin: that is when you met? justice ginsburg: i met him for the first time when he was giving a speech to some unit of the aba. must have been the administrative law. it was on a case that had
recently been decided by the d.c. circuit. it -- justice scalia: we were both academics at the time. aboute ginsburg: it was vermont yankee. you were against it. i was listening to him and agreeing with a good part of what he said but thought he said it in a captivating -- and a good part ofh what he was saying but thought he said it in a captivating way. [laughter] marvin: composer derek wayne has called scalia ginsburg. you are both locked in a room unable to get out unless you agree. at one point, scalia roars and despair "ruth, can you read? so probably, you have derived -- failed to derive the text true meaning." to which ginsburg replies "how
many times must i tell you justice scalia, you are searching in vain for a bright line solution but the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve." are you two ever going to agree on big issues and still maintain the friendship? justice scalia: we agree on a lot of stuff. only on thed really knee-jerk stuff. [laughter] justice scalia: she is a really good textual list. she's terrific. she's very smart. most cases i think we are together. i think we are together in a lot of criminal defense cases. upholding the right of the criminal defendant.
ruth and i are quite frequently in dissent from the courts decision. we agree on a whole lot. you have it wrong. the pressnsburg: , the heavythe 25% cases, the constitutional cases. most of what we are doing is trying to interpret dense statutes that congress passes that are very difficult. cases, there isn't the usual lineup that the press expects to see in the most-watched cases. procedures.many you got one round last year. [laughter]
and we bothburg: care about the way opinions are crafted. it's not easy to write an opinion. i think you can very much about how it is said and so do i because the way we say it is quite different. justice scalia: one reason we became such good friends on the d.c. circuit was we were both former academics. harry edwards was another academic on the court. in academia i'd of law school when you wrote an article, you would circulate it to your colleagues and they would make helpful comments, not just "this is wrong." ruth and i did that with one another's opinions. we wouldn't do it to anybody else's but she would suggest additional stuff i would put in and i would for her as well.
marvin: i would like us to go on but our time is up. i want to thank our wonderful, attentive audience. i want to thank the many who watched and listened all over the nation and the world but most important, i want to thank and tonekable guest, and scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. thank you so much. [applause] marvin: as we know close to 20 years of doing these reports, i want to say thank you to all the have had this kind of civilized conversation and they know who they are and that is all we can do for now. as edinburgh used to say many years ago, "good night and good luck." [applause]
marvin: this is still being seen on c-span. the first question is to justice scalia. why are you the way that you are? [laughter] justice scalia: the devil makes me do it. [laughter] ginsburg, aice question from josh gibson, a student at the kennedy school. the first amendment is a bit of a grab bag for free expression rights. decided against
including others, are there others that they or you wish had been included? justice ginsburg: that was a concern about having a bill of rights, that you wrote on what the right word. statementhave this that says the enumeration of rights should not be to discourage or disparage others. one thing we didn't burn up before was the first amendment is the first amendment. -- it was about not having an established church. the first thing is no law ofpecting the establishment
religion and the freedom side of it prohibiting the free exercise. the first inning and didn't want to have was a church of england. marvin: it's something you cannot do. but what is the positive side of that? justice scalia: it's all negative. it's all saying what the government cannot do. it is all limitations upon the government. that is what the entire bill of rights is. they're all negative. marvin: and except the government, everyone else can do what they want? justice scalia: yes. justice ginsburg: to take an example, we have an antidiscrimination law. until then, discrimination in
the private sector was ok because the constitution restricts what government can do. a private employer could say i don't want any woman in this job and that would be perfectly ok as it was until 1964. marvin: did you have something to do with that? [laughter] justice ginsburg: i would say president johnson and the congress that passed us a civil rights act of 1964 had everything to do with that. marvin: a question from kathryn. to whom does the first amendment apply? do undocumented immigrants have the freedoms? i think so.ia: i think anybody who is present in the united states has protections under the united states constitution. americans abroad have that protection. other people abroad do not.
they don't have the protections of our constitution. when we get tog: the 14th amendment, it doesn't speak of citizens. some constitutions grant rights says thens but ours person is every person who is here documented or undocumented. marvin: ice. -- i see. i've a question from david, whom you know. where do you look to decide whether freedom of the press is or is not identical with freedom of speech? i have a feeling that's a loaded question. justice scalia: i have never thought that it was anything except identical. i cannot imagine that you can
limit some things that can be spoken but cannot limit things that can be printed. i think it's the same criteria as to whether the limitation is to gone constitutional. justice ginsburg: i think david must have a case in mind. [laughter] nikki. a question from rattlede any case that your friendship? justice ginsburg: i think we mire most at war over the v case. you had a stirring dissent. justice scalia: it was a great dissent. justice ginsburg: you were the only dissenter. [laughter] justice scalia: that's only because clarence was recused.
justice ginsburg: that is true but remember the chief voted for my judgment, not your defending opinion. [laughter] justice ginsburg: everywhere we i don't know how many rounds we went. one time, i had a footnote that referred to the university of virginia at charlottesville and you put them back saying you have to forget this ignorant person because she doesn't know there is no university of at charlottesville. justice scalia: she even spoke about the campus. justice ginsburg: he wasn't finished writing the dissent. it was getting rather late. we were interviewing already. the copy of his dissent. he wasn't ready to circulate it yet but he came to my chambers and gave it to me and said i want to give you as much time as i can to answer this.
so went off to my judicial conference and it ruined my whole weekend. [laughter] justice ginsburg: he gave me the extra days to respond. i really appreciated that. justice scalia: i have never gotten angry at ruth or any of my colleagues because of the way they voted in an opinion. if you cannot disagree with your the law without taking it personally, you ought to get another day job. of a jobto the kind that will allow you to behave that way. ruth and i disagree on the law all the time but it has never had anything to do with our friendship. justice ginsburg: we do also have a difference in style. people might regard my opinions as rather dull, boring.
yours are really jazzy sometimes. [laughter] fromn: here is a question seth dawson of the office of congressman denny heck. justice stephenson recently suggested an amendment to modify the second amendment. could amend the constitution in one way, what would it be and why? i certainlyia: would not want a constitutional convention. i mean, woah. who knows what would come out of that. if there were a targeted amendment that were inducted by the states, i think the only provision i would amend is the amendment provision. time whatout at one percentage of the populace could prevent an amendment to the constitution and if you take it
their majority in the smallest states by population, i think something less than 2% of the people can prevent a constitutional amendment. it should be hard but it shouldn't be that hard. justice ginsburg: if i could choose an amendment to add to this constitution, it would be the equal rights amendment. [applause] marvin: what do you mean by that? justice ginsburg: it means that women are people equal in stature before the law. that is a fundamental constitutional principle. i think we have achieved that through legislation but legislation can be repealed, it can be altered.
i mentioned title vii of the civil rights act and the first one was the equal pay act. , that principle belongs in our constitution. it is in every constitution written since the second world war. like myuld granddaughters when they pick up the constitution to see that notion that women and men are persons of equal stature. i would like them to see that that is a basic principle of our society. marvin: is there any doubt in your mind that would pass the judgment of the american people? justice ginsburg: well come it didn't. it came pretty close. i think that's an illustration of how hard it is. marvin: to get an amendment.
justice ginsburg: yeah. justice scalia: you don't want me to comment on that do you? [laughter] what extent do social media platforms such as twitter where speech can be broadcast to millions instantly challenge traditional concepts of free speech? interesting question. what is your thought on that? well, i don't: know that it challenges traditional concepts of free speech. it certainly challenges of finding manners out who said what where certain people say things that are unlawful or punishable by law. but i don't think it changes what the first amendment means. justice ginsburg: the great
that isf people who use you can't take it back. once you have it out, it's there for everyone to see. marvin: but you don't feel it changes the concept of freedom of beach or the press? justice ginsburg: you would have to give me an example. marvin: as it becomes easier to share opinions and visions, should social media be required to limit what is shared? is that a legal question quick-==? is a policyia: it question. i don't do policy. justice ginsburg: i would agree.
you feel the separation of church and state has been misunderstood with congress and the supreme court taking a proactive stand on the establishment portion but not on the prohibition party? i don'tscalia: understand what he means by the last part. marvin: i was hoping you would. [laughter] marvin: i'm sorry. our last question. when you were a youngster, what did you want to be when you grew up? i don't evera: recall wanting to be anything. a baseball player or a hockey player or a lawyer or certainly never a judge. i never said my cap on being a judge. i didn't even want to be a lawyer when i was in call it.
when i graduated, i didn't know what i was going to do. my uncle was a lawyer. he had an office and i used to go out there and it seemed like theod life so i went into law but i can't say i ever wanted to do anything but to do well what i was assigned to do. if i've any quality that counts for making it this far, it's my quality in my able to interest myself in what ever was shoved under my nose. i take pleasure in doing it to the extent i could perfectly but i never said my cap on being a judge. justice ginsburg: in my growing limits onwere so many what a girl could aspire to be.
she could not be a police officer, a firefighter, a coal miner, she couldn't work at night. there were all these restrictions. there were very few women lawyers. a.b. 3% -- maybe 3% of the bar. there were even fewer judges. i never aspired to be a lawyer, certainly not a judge. had to make a living, i better be a teacher. security job for women. the exhilarating before me -- information is when i think about the opportunities open to my daughters and granddaughters that didn't exist. i will give you my favorite example. my granddaughter who is now 23, when she was eight, she was with me and i was being interviewed
and she said i want to be part of this show so the reporter said all right what would you like to be when you grow up? her response was i would like to be president of the united states of the world. [laughter] justice ginsburg: that to me is the change in what girls can aspire to do and can achieve. marvin: unfortunately, we've come to the end of the line. i want to share with you the essence of the conversation repeated over and over again with me and the producers of this program. that is the thought that we live at a time in washington when the idea that two people who have strongly different opinions on very important issues can
canally be good friends and actually respect one another and that kind of mutual respect is so terribly important today and i hope, i truly hope this program televised as it has been can set an example and serve as a model for people all over the country who might have different opinions but do recognize there's plenty of room for different opinions and we should have more road for mutual friendship. thank you both so very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we ask that you please remain in your the justices are escorted from the ballroom. we ask if you could please remain in your seats.
>> on this weekend's newsmakers, ,ur guest is johnny isakson chair of the veterans affairs committee. he talks about the president's proposed budget and efforts to introduce change in the department. watch the interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. nicholson is a budget reporter with bloomberg and he joins us to talk about president obama's proposed 2017 federal budget. what is the significance of the budget, this being president obama's last year in office and an election year? a politically document. it is his last year in office. ways arens in many already treating it as such.
a lot of course specific proposals but in terms of the actual money they will be ,ighting over this coming year the top line numbers have been figured out. of a politicalre document than a practical guide arguably to what the policy discussions will be this year. >> in light of that, what are some of the key details? on the overview of it, basically it's about a 4.1 trillion dollars in spending, 3.6 trillion dollars in revenue. over 10 years, the accumulated deficits are $6 trillion.
within 2017, includes a lot of new money for transportation that is funded by that $10 per barrel oilfield. he includes some expansion of the art income tax credit. that's something the official said today they hope to try to work with republicans on. is also some increased money for things like cancer research and clean energy. the cancer part is this is seated with the vice president biden's initiative. just to give an idea here, they usually try to target initiatives like these. these are arguably time year and
then rifle shot since we are trying to find common ground between this white house and the republican caucus. >> let's turn to war funding. budget. you have tweeted about this. the white house budget keeps total for fiscal year 17. what's going on here? right now, house leadership was to put together their own budget resolution. they're having some pushback from members and their own caucus who are upset at the overall spending levels. one possibility that happened last year is they made trying to increase defense spending to
help votes from members concerned about defense spending . one way to do that would be to try to include a higher oco number. but today, that number shows they have no interest at least so far in a higher oco number. house gop leaders may be on their own when they try to increase oco. briefly, i want to touch on the response speaker ryan immediately writing that the budget proposal is a progressive -- what isthought the likelihood of those bills being taken up individually? >> historically, two things to
keep in mind. the last time that was done in terms of individual bills being , was 1994. the last time a republican congress agreed on a budget resolution in an election year 2000. history sort of prevails. >> thank you so much for joining us. we will keep tabs on this. we will follow you on twitter. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> this presidents' day weekend, book tv has two days of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2 and