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

Skip to comments.

Justice Antonin Scalia Reconfirms: No Right to Abortion in Constitution
Life News ^ | 10/17/07 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 10/17/2007 3:25:32 PM PDT by wagglebee

Philadelphia, PA (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia attended Catholic celebratory events on Monday and gave a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture. He reconfirmed his belief that the so-called right to abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution.

He said that notion is not guided by his Catholic views but by his understanding of the Constitution and his perspective as a "strict originalist" and "legal positivist."

"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn't say it doesn't say."

"I don't agree we are in an era of narrow constitutional interpretation. There are still sweeping decisions out there," Scalia added.

"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.

Scalia said that he also supports the notion that state legislatures should be allowed to make laws because they are closer to the people. That state's rights argument has long been extended towards overturning Roe v. Wade.

"To the extent you believe judges have the right to change law then you are in the soup," he argued, according to The Bulletin.

"Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?"


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; antoninscalia; moralabsolutes; prolife; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last
"Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?"

Great point!

1 posted on 10/17/2007 3:25:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; 8mmMauser

Pro-Life Ping


2 posted on 10/17/2007 3:26:16 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; ..
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 10/17/2007 3:26:37 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If there’s a right to abortion in the constitution, then when was it ratified? Is there a record of the two-thirds roll call vote in both houses of Congress, and a list of the three-fourths of the states that ratified it?


4 posted on 10/17/2007 3:28:57 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Certainly a great human hero.


5 posted on 10/17/2007 3:29:15 PM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

No kidding it’s not in there. The Constitution is not that long and complicated that one can’t read it.

For issues not mentioned in the Constitution, the states have the power to decide. How complicated is that? All these issues should go to the states (abortion, gay rights, etc)


6 posted on 10/17/2007 3:29:24 PM PDT by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I got slammed for saying this on here back in August. Finally, someone in government said it.


7 posted on 10/17/2007 3:29:55 PM PDT by darkangel82 (All right! Let's go Tribe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn't say it doesn't say."

This should be a footnote on every document the Federal Government releases, including money. States' Rights bump!
8 posted on 10/17/2007 3:35:55 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; JustAmy; mtngrl@vrwc; gracie1; Mama_Bear; jkphoto; notpoliticallycorewrecked; ...

Great remarks by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia!!


9 posted on 10/17/2007 3:46:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Hmmm.... seeing as how Rudy Giuliani actually supports a woman’s right to abortion as a constitutional right, I wonder how sincere is his pledge to appoint “strict constructionist” judges like Scalia?


10 posted on 10/17/2007 3:51:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It’s the other way around. Article 5 says:

No person ...shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

We have deprived tens of millions of human lives in the past 30+ years


11 posted on 10/17/2007 3:51:56 PM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

How can you exercise your right to life, liberty, and pursue happiness if you’ve been aborted? What Justice Scalia said needed to be said, very unfortunately.


12 posted on 10/17/2007 3:52:34 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Great point!


13 posted on 10/17/2007 3:52:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Democracy (legislature) vs. aristocracy (judges, law lords) — take your pick.


14 posted on 10/17/2007 3:52:56 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.

One might argue that your right of privacy in your papers and property extended to a womans body. Ok. So then my right of privacy also should extend to the substances I put into my body, which means that all drug laws should be null and void.

Yeah. When pigs fly.

15 posted on 10/17/2007 3:53:55 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
While this is good news it is also true that Justice Scalia does not see the unborn as legal persons as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here is a sample of what IMO is critical reading:

No present or past Justice has ever taken the position that the unborn child is, or should be regarded as, a “person” as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the late Justice White, perhaps the most eloquent critic of Roe v. Wade.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0211/opinion/linton.html

16 posted on 10/17/2007 3:54:44 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Pro-life kudos to J. Scalia!


17 posted on 10/17/2007 3:59:22 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Of course Dems and their fellow travelers will argue the definition of “person” just like the previous WH occupant argued the definition of sex.

Dems did the same with slaves back in the 1800s...


18 posted on 10/17/2007 4:00:03 PM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Rooty Toot wouldn’t recognize a strict constructionist if his life depended on it. He would appoint judges who “strictly” define the Constitution as “living and breathing” and probably outdated. The best we would get under him is someone along the lines of Sandra Day O’Connor, but more likely we would get another Souter.


19 posted on 10/17/2007 4:00:43 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Abortionists are denying life to 3500 Americans EVERY DAY.


20 posted on 10/17/2007 4:02:18 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
While this is good news it is also true that Justice Scalia does not see the unborn as legal persons as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment

They will sure have a hard time explaining that to God....

Jeremiah 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

21 posted on 10/17/2007 4:05:13 PM PDT by LaineyDee (Don't mess with Texas wimmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?"

I hope he doesn't apply that reasoning to Parker v D.C., the Second Amendment case the Court will hear.

22 posted on 10/17/2007 4:08:06 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

No, Scalia is very clear on the fact that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says.


23 posted on 10/17/2007 4:09:22 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The difference between Scalia and his detractors is not over the concepts of either “judicial independence” or “judicial review”.

But, unlike some others on the SCOTUS, Scalia would tell you that in his jurisprudence he acknowledges that he does not have the right to AMEND the Constitution to make it say what he wants it to say simply because he thinks he (or the South African supreme court) can say it better than it is said in the Constitution.

We do not have “freedom of speech”, a woman’s right to vote or the end of slavery acknowledged in the Constitution on the basis that some Supreme Court Judges decided they belong there - even though we may all think those are good things. They entered the Constitution when we the people placed those things there in amendments.

When judges think they can write new “rights” into the Constitution - because they think it is a better idea - then by the same abrogation of a right that belongs only to us - to amend the Constitution - they obtain the power to throw out our rights that HAVE been written there - and they do (campaign finance reform, eminent domain, etc.)

Scalia understands this.

A SCOTUS that actually believes in the independence of the judiciary would know that its primary client is not the latest “popular” “rights” agenda, but the Constitution, preserving the application of it as it has been produced, buy the people. A politically “independent” judiciary would have told Congress - on the Campaign Finance Reform issue - that if they wanted to abrogate the First Amendment, to exclude political speech, they’d have to get the Constitution amended. Instead, many on the court treat it as another political body, as an unelected super-legislature, re-writing the Constitution from the bench, one ruling at a time.


24 posted on 10/17/2007 4:12:07 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

And Scalia is the type of person Rudi will nominate to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court! I hope Dr. Dobson finally understands what Rudi means when he uses Scalia as a role model, unless he wants a pro-abortion justice appointed by Hildabeast.


25 posted on 10/17/2007 4:12:44 PM PDT by GreyFriar ( 3rd Armored Division - Spearhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Scalia said that he also supports the notion that state legislatures should be allowed to make laws because they are closer to the people.

Someone in Washington actually has Constitutionally focused common sense???

I think I'm in love politically! : - )

26 posted on 10/17/2007 4:15:46 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Jim Robinson
Rooty Toot wouldn’t recognize a strict constructionist if his life depended on it.

He would shun and show disdain for a strict constructionist if his political career depended upon it however.

27 posted on 10/17/2007 4:19:00 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar; Jim Robinson
And Scalia is the type of person Rudi will nominate to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court!

LMAO!!!

The ONLY thing that Justice Scalia and Rooty Toots have, or ever will have, in common is that they are both Italian Americans. Rooty is no more likely to appoint a strict constructionist than Hillary is. Thankfully, neither of them will ever get the chance.

28 posted on 10/17/2007 4:19:18 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

BTTT


29 posted on 10/17/2007 4:19:24 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Rooty has spent his entire career shunning and showing disdain for everyone who believes in the strict interpretation of the Constitution.


30 posted on 10/17/2007 4:20:51 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

31 posted on 10/17/2007 4:21:31 PM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Rooty has spent his entire career shunning and showing disdain for everyone who believes in the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Rooty's a Democrat in RINO's clothing.

32 posted on 10/17/2007 4:24:24 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Amen brother.

We love ya!


33 posted on 10/17/2007 4:26:28 PM PDT by wardaddy (Behind the lines in Vichy Nashville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

You and he are both liars.


34 posted on 10/17/2007 4:26:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Originalist os Constructionist? I know Rooty said “Constructionalist. Originalist would be my choice.


35 posted on 10/17/2007 4:29:42 PM PDT by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet

Mine too.


36 posted on 10/17/2007 4:30:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Rooty's a Democrat in RINO's clothing.

Except when he's in drag!

37 posted on 10/17/2007 4:31:18 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nosofar
Spreading it to the blogs.
38 posted on 10/17/2007 4:33:03 PM PDT by Jay777 (My personal blog: www.stoptheaclu.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

I believe it immediately follows the part that states that there is a “wall” between church and state;)


39 posted on 10/17/2007 4:33:32 PM PDT by isrul (Lamentations 5:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers...

WHO ARE UNELECTED AND WHO HAVE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS AND THUS NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT SERVING THE PEOPLE...


40 posted on 10/17/2007 4:33:48 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

As you say, it’s quite clear both from his early record and his recent comments that what Giuliani means by “strict construction” is very different from what it normally means.

Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Moreover, he added that they have a consitutional right to have the government pay for their abortion.

Pro-abortionists often play these word games, taking plain language and distorting it for their own purposes. “Reproductive health” and “choice” are two examples. It’s obvious that Rudy has no intention of appointing strict constructionists in the normal sense of the language.


41 posted on 10/17/2007 4:34:35 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet

Rudy has stated that he believes a woman’s right to choose abortion is a constitutional right and that a strict constructionist judge would see it that way too. So much for his “strict constructionist” judges.


42 posted on 10/17/2007 4:34:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Justice Antonin Scalia Reconfirms: No Right to Abortion in Constitution”

Now given that Trudy believes that murdering your unborn child IS a Constitutional right, how can ANYONE believe him when he says that he would nominate judges (ala Scalia) that are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO HIM ON THE MOST IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUE OF THE LAST 4 DECADES?????


43 posted on 10/17/2007 4:36:21 PM PDT by Grunthor (http://franz.org/quiz.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

They can make law and if they do so they should say so and not stretch the language because that leads to meaning inflation which the country has the most major case of in history. The words of the English language are close to meaning nothing anymore.


44 posted on 10/17/2007 4:37:38 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Beat me to it. That was my first thought as well.


45 posted on 10/17/2007 4:38:29 PM PDT by Grunthor (http://franz.org/quiz.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Go, Tony, go!

I love Scalia!!!


46 posted on 10/17/2007 4:39:26 PM PDT by Palladin (Fred is Presidential.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

I believed GHWB a hell of a lot more than I will ever believe Rooty Toot and look where “Read my lips: no new taxes” got us.

And given the choice between taxes and 3500 murdered children a day, I would pay the taxes.


47 posted on 10/17/2007 4:42:24 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

“And Scalia is the type of person Rudi will nominate to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court!”

And the moon is made of cheese.

And Michael Moore is a paragon of truth telling.

And RABID MONKEYS WILL FLY OUT OF MY BACKSIDE!

You are delusional.


48 posted on 10/17/2007 4:42:25 PM PDT by Grunthor (http://franz.org/quiz.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion

Say that again!

There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!

Say That Again!

There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!

Say That Again!

There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!

49 posted on 10/17/2007 4:43:06 PM PDT by Old Sarge (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?”

The man has a genius for stating the simple facts.


50 posted on 10/17/2007 4:44:47 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-152 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