Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Scalia says Supreme Court should take back seat to voters
The Kansas City Star (Missouri) ^ | May 3, 2006 | Christopher Leonard

Posted on 05/04/2006 11:50:16 AM PDT by DBeers

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: tpaine
You don't have time to 'untwist' your own comments about prohibitions on machine guns? -- Fine with me.

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?

41 posted on 05/09/2006 10:26:09 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (George Allen's conservatism is as ephemeral as his virtual fence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; robertpaulsen; Mojave

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?


42 posted on 05/09/2006 11:12:48 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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?


43 posted on 05/09/2006 1:04:44 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
You're arguing that the 'morality' of legislators that ignore basic human rights, - that prohibit machine guns, --- is comparable to legislators who honor their Constitutional obligations.
I find that type of reasoning repugnant, and immoral.

Comparing Pol Pot's 'moral' views to Moses -- is simply bizarre.
44 posted on 05/09/2006 2:36:46 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888

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.


45 posted on 05/09/2006 2:41:04 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin

What 2 billion people are you referring to?


46 posted on 05/09/2006 2:42:00 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The Court used the Tenth amendment for its rationalization of that abomination.


47 posted on 05/09/2006 2:59:18 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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.


48 posted on 05/09/2006 3:06:44 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
They DID feel they were morally superior to the "masses."(you and me). They spoke for the elite of the country, and that elite had decided in favor of abortion on demand.
49 posted on 05/09/2006 3:22:33 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The law books that Abraham carried around with him as he was studying for the bar included Blackstone's commentaries.


50 posted on 05/09/2006 3:24:46 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

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...


51 posted on 05/09/2006 3:44:33 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
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.

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?

52 posted on 05/09/2006 5:21:23 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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.


53 posted on 05/09/2006 8:31:44 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The law books that Abraham carried around with him as he was studying for the bar included Blackstone's commentaries.

Yes, and they're still required reading in law schools today.

They are the very foundation of our laws.

54 posted on 05/10/2006 6:05:00 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I will hold my government to the intent of the Founders...whether it likes it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit; EternalVigilance; robertpaulsen; Mojave
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 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.

55 posted on 05/10/2006 8:08:05 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
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.

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.

56 posted on 05/10/2006 8:23:23 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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.


57 posted on 05/10/2006 10:08:42 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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 posted on 05/10/2006 10:13:57 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
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 posted on 05/10/2006 10:25:01 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"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 posted on 05/10/2006 10:40:02 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson