HLS: Breyer, Scalia, & others discuss U.S. and U.K. judicial systems

[TaleWgnDg]

.

http://media.law.harvard.edu:8888/ramgen/news_events/fall_05/2005_09_28_practicejudging.rm (RealVideo®, 34Kbps, RealPlayer® required, 1 hour, 25 minutes, 24 seconds)
(as last visited Thursday, October 6, 2005)



5-member panel, Ames Courtroom, Harvard Law School

On Wednesday, September 28, 2005, Harvard Law School, Harvard Law School Instructional Services, hosted an annual event entitled "Anglo-American Legal Exchange," a 5-member panel which included U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia who were joined by their British counterparts for a wide-ranging panel discussion on the similarities and differences between the judicial systems in the U.S. and U.K.

Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan was moderator of the 5-member panel, from L to R,
(1) The Right Honourable The Lord Scott of Foscote, (2) Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, (3) The Right Honourable Lady Justice Arden, (4) The Right Honourable The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, and (5) Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Students flooded the event, which filled both the Ames Courtroom and an overflow room in Langdell Hall.

Question participation followed from the HLS student audience to the panel. For example, an HLS student addressed and questioned Justice Scalia about Bush v. Gore (2001) and that HLS Professor Dershowitz told the student not to ask the question. "I don't think on the part of anybody, (there were) any political considerations (on SCOTUS regarding Bush v. Gore)," said Scalia (59:59). Another student questions "politics" and term limits. Justice Breyer raises Bush v. Gore and defines political/politics (1:06:25). Scalia tosses in his view about "politics," Bush v. Gore, suicide, and abortion, then applies all as to "living constitution" versus "at-the-time-of-the-constitution-was-written" (1:11:10). Harvard Law School Dean Kagan asks anyone on the panel about foreign law and the application of foreign law to their cases before them. Scalia, "I would agree if I were a common law judge (as in U.K.) and making up the law . . . . I would consult the Ouija board!" Justice Breyer rebuts while looking directly at Scalia that our jurisprudence has its foundation in foreign law and cites several bases (1:19:00).

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2005/09/30_judging.php
(as last visited Thursday, October 6, 2005)
.

.
Note how abrupt, pompous, and at times coarse is Justice Scalia as opposed to Justice Breyer who attempts (successfully) to build bridges of understanding and clarity to the audience. And, the Brits being Brits were stoic and polite. All-in-all this is an instructive lesson from the panel in its attempts to explain the differences between the U.S. and U.K. judicial systems as asked by the moderator and the HLS students. I highly recommend it.
.

[rpannier]

1. I'm surprised Scalia went

considering he has such contempt for International Law.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. During the summer months (or more correctly whenever

SCOTUS is not in session (from late June til early October)), the justices tour the country and some go overseas to lecture, visit, give talks, etc. It's not unusual for Scalia to butt heads with Breyer in public discussion panels. They've done it before. Other justices join them or not.

_______________________________

edited to add: And, yes, I agree w/ you Scalia is contemptuous. Eh. LOL (sorry about that pun b/c I can't stand him either!)

[SammyBlue]

2. Scalia is an elitist of the worst variety

In fact, his constant "absolutist, strict constructionist" attitudes are always a shield for what he really is. . .an activist of the worst odor.

Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that gayo-Americans are entitled to a second class citizen's status?