Scalia 2012: I Would Not Like To Be Replaced By Someone Who Would Undo Everything I Did

>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made it clear to Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace in 2012 that if he could choose a time to step down from the high court, it would not be when a liberal president could appoint a liberal jurist to replace him, THE DAILY CALLER reports.

“You’re 76 years old. Will you time your retirement so a more conservative president can appoint a like-minded justice?” Wallace asked.

“I don’t now. I haven’t decided when to retire,” Scalia responded.

Wallace asked again, “But hasn’t it gone through your mind ‘That if I retire, I’d like to see…’ You talk about Republicans appointing one kind of justice and Democrats another. You would want somebody who adhered to your view?”

Scalia answered, “Well of course. I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25–26 years. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that, unless you think I’m a fool.”

Scalia passed away on Shabbos at a Texas vacation ranch in El Paso. He was 79 years old. President Obama announced Saturday he would nominate a judge to replace Scalia “in due time.”

WATCH Scalia here (cue 21:56):




  1. President G.H.W. Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, who probably was about as close to a polar opposite as you can get. There is no reserved seat for any particular race, religion, gender or political philosophy.

    • The New York Times (hardly a right-wing organization) exhaustively examined the Florida ballots and concluded that had the Supreme Court allowed the recount Al Gore requested, George W. Bush would still have won. That GWB won because of poor ballot design and confused voters is beyond a reasonable doubt, but that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Supreme Court. Give it a rest already, please.

  2. “Give it a rest already, please.” Are you kidding?
    When all the damage done is reversed then we can give it a rest.

    “exhaustively examined the Florida ballots and concluded that had the Supreme Court allowed the recount Al Gore requested, George W. Bush would still have won…

    Not quite. For example the issue of overvotes wasn’t addressed at all. For example if a ballot was punched in for Gore and Gore was written in this ballot was rejected. The intenrt of the vote is unambigious yet it is rejected. With manual recounts (which should have been done) these votes would have been counted giving Gore the win by several hundred votes.

    Yet the “states rights” supporter Scalia susddenly saw fit to step in ona purely state issue and steal the election

    • …the issue of overvotes wasn’t addressed at all
      Incorrect. Google “2000 florida election new york times” (without quotes) and read the NY Times that;s at the top of the search results. Everything was looked at – dimples, hanging chads, undervotes and overvotes.

  3. Wrong
    And it is practicaly impossible to predict.
    See wikipedia page were you can see many tabulations based on a variety of standards severla of which lead to Gore winning

    • That’s a different topic which has nothing to do with the court’s decision. If a statewide recount was done, it’s possible that Gore may have won under certain standards (Bush still wins under most standards). But this has nothing to do with your original argument that the Supreme Court stopped Gore from winning. Gore wanted a recount in four counties only and that’s what the Supremes stopped. Scrupulous review of all the ballots in those four counties shows that it was impossible for Gore to win no matter what criteria was used for the recount. Saying that the Supreme Court stopped Gore from winning is 100% provably incorrect.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here