Posted on 05/04/2006 11:50:16 AM PDT by DBeers
ST. LOUIS - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday he doesn't want an overly broad job description. In fact, he wants the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the nation's most important decision making.
Scalia said too much regulatory power has shifted to the judicial branch during his speech before hundreds of attorneys at a Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis luncheon.
Over the last 50 years, the United States has put too much emphasis on letting bureaucratic experts make important policy decisions, Scalia said. Such decisions, he said, ultimately come down to a moral judgment.
"There's no right answer - only a policy preference," Scalia said. "It is utterly impossible to take politics out of policy decisions."
Scalia criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which established the constitutional right to abortion. He said such decisions can't be made without a moral judgment, and should therefore be left to voters or the politicians they elect.
Scalia compared Roe v. Wade with a ruling in 2000 by the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the privacy of a homosexual man who engaged in group sex. Scalia said the ruling prohibited nations in the European Union from grappling independently with the question of whether homosexuality is morally acceptable.
"Surely the binding answer to that question should not be decided by seven unelected judges," Scalia said, drawing applause from the crowd.
Scalia drew laughter from the crowd several times, once when he sarcastically commented on the notion judges should liberally interpret the U.S. Constitution to keep pace with America's maturing moral standards.
"Societies only mature; they never rot," he said.
Earlier in the day, Scalia attended a Law Day Mass celebrated by Archbishop Raymond Burke at the Basilica of St. Louis. They were joined by Gov. Matt Blunt and Mayor Francis Slay.
ping...
All laws are inherently moral judgments.
The single greatest wrong decision in the subpreme's history was the ruling allowing government to take private property to give to other private citizens in order to increase tax revenues. THAT is so counter to the Constitution and our founding principles that it may be the one ruling which does the most destruction to this Republic in the coming years. ... And you know how I feel about Roe v Wade and the fiat nature of that ruling.
Would you please give an example of any law in effect that doesn't constrains some conduct considered "wrong", i.e. immoral?
False.
In response to the leftists who splutter that we can't legislate morality Robert Bork replied, "We legislate little else."
True.
The voters of California MADE the decision to allow medical marijuana via referendum - and he struck it down.
Don't call someone a liar when you contradict your own statements.
Concepts of right and wrong are moral in nature. Congress, civil authorities, or someone must make moral judgments in this regard. The debate is not about that moral judgments are made, but over the substance of the moral code invoked.
-11-
The "moral code invoked" has been established for over two hundred years in our Constitution.
Congress, civil authorities, -- all officials, "-- both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this Constitution; --"
LPM is quite correct, -- there is nothing in the Constitution that gives elected officials, bureaucratic experts, or Judges the authority to make "Moral Judgments".
They are empowered to make reasonable decisions and to write & enforce reasonable regulations, using due process of law. -- Law that does not deprive any person of life, liberty or property; -- unconstitutionally.
The very propositions of the Constitution have "moral judgments" at their base, so we have ample precedent for the practice.
Yep, as outlined above, laws can be made. - Constitutional laws.
The Constitution does not forbid the enactment of laws, all of which are moral judgments,
It forbids laws that embody 'moral judgments' which deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
but assumes that laws are good and necessary, as long as they are enacted by a government representative of the citizens.
Bull... Our Constitution tries to ensure that 'government representatives' are restrained in their lawmaking by the checks & balances built into its system.
Libertarianism will never be a viable political philosophy -
Telling shift of subject. You are attacking libertarianism right after defending authoritarianism.
even the liberal knows that some unwritten code of moral conduct must hold sway, even if it be a debauched one.
Yep, authoritarian socialists & liberal democrats think alike; they both love governmental decrees.
Would you please give an example of any law in effect that doesn't constrains some conduct considered "wrong", i.e. immoral?
Sure, -- any federal, state or local law that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms is constraining on 'moral' conduct.
What do you find 'immoral' about owning a machine gun?
All laws are inherently moral judgments.
22 EV
What's 'moral' about prohibiting the ownership of machine guns?
Nothing. But someone made a moral judgment.
Indeed.
I was calling Scalia a liar.
All laws are inherently moral judgments.
22 EV
What's 'moral' about prohibiting the ownership of machine guns?
Nothing. But someone made a moral judgment.
If you agree there is "nothing" moral about prohibiting the ownership of machine guns, why are you claiming that someone made a 'moral' judgment?
Can't you admit such a judgment is 'immoral' in respect to our Constitution?
In response to the leftists who splutter that we can't legislate morality Robert Bork replied, "We legislate little else."
"Indeed", agrees EternalVigilance. -- Little realizing that Mojave is a gun grabber that finds 'morality' in prohibitions on machine guns.
Article 1, Section 7.
You've got my statements all twisted around, all out of any recognition.
Sounds to me like you're trying to drag me into an argument with someone else.
I don't have time for it.
Thanks for the clarification.
jwalsh07:
Article 1, Section 7.
Can you cite the reference to 'moral judgment' within Article 1, Section 7?
You don't have time to 'untwist' your own comments about prohibitions on machine guns? -- Fine with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.