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.
Furthermore, if one reads Lincoln's papers, one finds a lot of Blackstone in them. Can't explain Lincon without reading Blackstone.
Yes that is correct.
-57-
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.
58 justshutupandtakeit
The police power of a state is defined as "the inherent power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general security, health, safety, moral, and welfare except where legally prohibited."
59 robertpaulsen
"I don't believe legislating against guns necessarily is a moral judgment." -- 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.
60 paulsen.
Well, there we have it again, from the jsuati/paulsen faction.. A direct admission that the 2nd can be ignored, machine guns can be prohibited by governments; -- by saying they are 'moral judgments' made by legislators.
Essentially you two are agreeing with Scalia..
--- Voting to make abortion legal is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
--- Voting to make gun prohibitions 'legal' is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Our Republic is in real danger from such unconstitutional doublespeak.
STATE POLICE POWER
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1627951/posts
No, it CAN be a moral judgement. And Scalia says that if it IS a moral judgement, it should be made by the people acting through their state legislators rather than the USSC. Which is where the gun laws are being written anyways.
Did you even bother to read the article?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread.
... interpreted since Marbury v Madison by the U.S. Supreme Court, said court making moral judgements.
Do you deny Scalia's assertion -- that the U.S. Supreme Court is making moral (or immoral) judgements and imposing those moral judgements on the states and the people?
Do you think we're better served making those judgements at the state level? And don't you think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
How more constitutional can you get than promoting the original intent of the Founding Fathers?
--- Voting to make gun prohibitions 'legal' is a moral judgment though not one which puts good morals ahead of other considerations.
Our Republic is in real danger from such unconstitutional doublespeak.
No, it CAN be a moral judgement. And Scalia says that if it IS a moral judgement, it should be made by the people acting through their state legislators rather than the USSC.
-- "CAN"? - "If it IS"? -- You people are quite clear on insisting that prohibitions on guns are Constitutional.
Exactly my point. - Unconstitutional 'laws' are being written by States, and you fellas are cheering them on.
Did you even bother to read the article?
Yes robbie, I did. And Scalia's pandering to 'moral' statists scares the hell out of me.
I don't see how your position differs than Scalia's. But HE'S the numbnut?
Scalia argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should NOT be the ones making these moral judgements. You agree. What's the problem?
Then you link me to a three-year-old commentary written by some undergraduate, Libertarian, Ludwig-von-Mises-wannabe who doesn't like Scalia's (truthful) comments about our government's war powers. Where did that come from?
Geez, it you want to start a "Bash Scalia" thread, be my guest. But, on this thread, maybe we can stick to the morality issue?
But you argue that these state laws are immoral. Are you disagreeing with Scalia and saying that these moral judgements should NOT be made at the state level and should be made at the federal level?
"IF it IS"? -- You people are quite clear on insisting that prohibitions on guns are Constitutional.
- Obviously, unconstitutional 'laws' are being written by States, and you fellas are cheering them on.
Scalia's pandering to 'moral' statists scares the hell out of me.
But you argue that these state laws are immoral.
State or federal, 'laws' that infringe on human rights are immoral.
Are you disagreeing with Scalia and saying that these moral judgements should NOT be made at the state level and should be made at the federal level?
These immoral, unconstitutional judgments should not be made at any level of government in the USA.
Tis a minor mystery robbie, how you can, day after day, defend prohibitions on our liberties.
What drives you to defy our Constitution?
SOME court at SOME level has to make a ruling on a law, even if it's to say that the law is wrong! Idiot.
And if some court is ruling whether a law is moral OR immoral, it's making a moral judgement, isn't it?
These immoral, unconstitutional judgments should not be made at any level of government in the USA.
Paulsen trolls:
SOME court at SOME level has to make a ruling on a law, even if it's to say that the law is wrong!Idiot.
Typical. You call me an "idiot" [please, no personal flames] -- when you can't refute the facts.
And if some court is ruling whether a law is moral OR immoral, it's making a moral judgement, isn't it?
Courts in the USA are sworn to support the clear words of our Constitution, [Article VI] not to make "moral judgments" about what they imagine the words mean.
Legislators in the USA are also sworn to support the clear words of our Constitution, [Article VI], -- not to make "moral judgments" about what they imagine the words mean.
You fellas, and Scalia, are dead wrong about 'moral judgments'. We the people made those judgments over two hundred years ago in ratification.
Justice Marshall said it best in Marbury [1803]:
"-- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation.
It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. ---"
Are you denying, as does Scalia, that an act of a legislature prohibiting machine guns, is "repugnant to the constitution", thus "void"?
You can't cite the law, produce the quote or name the case.
Why am I not surprised?
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.