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.
I wasn't in a conversation about machine guns, you were. But, for some reason, you asked me a direct question about it, and I gave you a direct answer. Banning them was a "moral judgment". It was a wrong moral judgment, IMO, but that's what it was nonetheless.
Is that clear enough for you?
It's clear that some of you fellas like to play word games about what construes a 'moral' judgment.
Legislators who ignore our Constitution while banning machine guns is an immoral act.
--- Is that clear enough for you?
Every time you see the word "Law" think morality because every law has at it's base a moral component. Whether or not you agree with the moral component at the base of the law is immaterial to whether every law has a moral component.
That says nothing about whether the moral component is moral, amoral or immoral and it says nothing about whther or not the law is constitutional. It's simply a fact that all laws reflect the morality of the lawmaker.
Pol Pot had one set of laws based on his morality and Moses reflected a somewhat different view when he came down from the mountain.
Why argue tautologies?
Scalia apparently is referring to the fact that MANY decisions made on a political basis are moral decisions.
Even a decision to go to war has moral implications which must be considered.
What 2 billion people are you referring to?
The Court used the Tenth amendment for its rationalization of that abomination.
A moral judgement made by someone is not necessarily moral. That is only the TYPE of judgement. And what is "moral" to you may be "immoral" to me but both evaluations are moral judgments.
The law books that Abraham carried around with him as he was studying for the bar included Blackstone's commentaries.
Yeah. I'm sure you're right. From what I remember, that court was headed up by a far-left wacko. Always confuse a couple of names because they are so close together. Berger and something else...
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
A moral judgement made by someone is not necessarily moral. That is only the TYPE of judgement. And what is "moral" to you may be "immoral" to me but both evaluations are moral judgments.
The Court used the Tenth amendment for its rationalization of that [roe v wade] abomination.
47 justshutupandtakeit
Thus we can take it that you would agree to abortion in States that make a 'moral judgment', -- by voters or the politicians they elect, -- to support abortion on demand?
Apparently you have difficulty grasping the fact that not using Morality in making a moral judgment IS STILL a moral judgment.
Voting to make prostitution legal is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Yes, and they're still required reading in law schools today.
They are the very foundation of our laws.
Legislators who ignore our Constitution while banning machine guns are committing an immoral act.
Voting to make certain guns 'illegal' can be facetiously termed to be a 'moral' judgment, -- though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
--- Is that clear enough for you?
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Apparently you have difficulty grasping the fact that not using Morality in making a moral judgment IS STILL a moral judgment.
Voting to make prostitution legal is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Yep, thats what I've been pointing out all along:
Voting to prohibit prostitution & machine guns is a so-called 'moral' judgment that violates Constitutional principles, -- though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Thus we can take it that you would agree to abortion in States that make a 'moral judgment', -- by voters or the politicians they elect, -- to support abortion on demand?
Apparently you have difficulty grasping the fact that not using Morality in making a moral judgment IS STILL a moral judgment.
Voting to make prostitution legal is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Then essentially you agree with Scalia..
Voting to make abortion legal is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Yes that is correct. But it is really even more complicated since both sides of an issue will claim they are motivated by moral concerns. I think what is key is not to pretend that moral concerns play no role in one's thinking. Be honest about it upfront.
Many fear that speaking of morality means religion becomes paramount in decisions.
I don't believe legislating against guns necessarily is a moral judgment. Most arguments appeal to "safety" issues to others rather than that guns will degrade morality.
Prostitution, drug or liquor legalisation was/is opposed specifically because they would degrade morals.
That appears different than gun control.
Exactly. It even depends on the gun legislation. Laws against Saturday Night Specials are passed for a different reason than laws against concealed carry or laws against machine guns or laws again "cop-killer" bullets.
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.