8mm
Posted on 01/25/2008 5:22:21 PM PST by wagglebee
Starkville, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Justice Antonin Scalia told students at Mississippi State University on Thursday that the nation's high court shouldn't be determining the legality of key moral issues like abortion. He said the high court is no more suited to determine if abortion should be legal than the average voter.
Scalia is a long-time proponent of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting state's have the ability to determine their own abortion laws.
“What I am questioning is the propriety, indeed, the sanity of letting value-laden decisions such as these be made for the entire society,” Scalia told the students in a speech.
“Even if there were scientific right answers, there would be no reason to believe that law-trained professionals could discern those answers better than say medical doctors or engineers or ethicists or Mr. Joe Six Pack," Scalia added, according to an Associated Press report.
“Our judges’ lack of special qualification to deal with such questions is disguised by the fact that they provided their answers in classic legal opinion form. It is blindingly clear that judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral,” Scalia said.
Scalia said, as recently as October, that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution.
In a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture, he reconfirmed that view.
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.
Pro-life advocates hope that another justice with the same views as Scalia can be added to the court to join with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to overturn Roe.
Hopefully, the Court will soon find a case to overturn Roe and declare that the Constitution supports life or at least returns the matter to the states.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
He’s right. Everytime the Court tries they screw it up.
I love this guy!
I now support human cloning, if only to make eight more copies of the good Justice Scalia for the court. :)
The court doesn’t ‘find’ cases. Cases are brought to the court.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Courts Shouldn't Decide Key Moral Issues Like Abortion
Courts Shouldn't Decide Key Moral Issues Like Murder
Courts Shouldn't Decide Key Moral Issues Like Rape
Courts Shouldn't Decide Key Moral Issues Like Arson
In fact he is right, legislators ought to write laws in accord with Natural Law.
“Hopefully, the Court will soon find a case to overturn Roe and declare that the Constitution supports life or at least returns the matter to the states.”
That depends in large part on who the next President is.
Justice Scalia makes a reference to one of FRs favorite sons!
lol, I second that :>
If Hillary gets to appoint the next person to the court, it will never turn over Roe v Wade.
This is the essence of conservative judicial philosophy. It does put a burden of balls on the legislative leg of government. Gee, maybe lawyers in black dresses are not the fount of American morality. What a concept!!
If we could have elected Fred Thompson we would likeley have two more justices just like AS, alas we could not.
If, the word that gets us nowhere.
If we only had a few more on the SCOTUS like him.
It is not over until is is over. The convention stands a clear chance of being deadlocked. Fred can rise again!!!
In a round about way they do "find" cases, there have been plenty of cases that dealt with abortion that the Court could have used to overturn Roe.
Justice Breyer: U.S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will.
My question is: Since Breyer has demonstrated an inability to hold to his oath, isn't he disqualified to continue holding his appointment?
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Here's a novel idea....how about We The People deciding, hmmm?
Lazarus or Frankenstein?
Thanks. I never read that quote. Prescient.
Yep. Old problem. Egos rise to power, along with the bodies that house them.
There are/were some wrongnesses written into the Constitution. It is no sacred document given by God’s hand. But there are processes for addressing those wrongs and activist judges isn’t one of them.
They should not be tolerated.
bttt!
Well, in order for this overriding, necessary objective, to occur something very intelligent, but unlikely, must happen.
The so-called “social conservatives” who have sworn to stay home rather than vote for any of the likely pub candidates will have to somehow come to realize that to do so is. objectively, a vote for shrillary, and consequently, certain death for untold millions of future unborn because our last opportunity for a generation to shape a conservative court will be squandered at the altar of “principle”
Why is this so hard to fathom ?
btt
Fred probably doesn’t wish to rise again or he would have stayed in.
“... a vote for shrillary, and consequently, certain death for untold millions of future unborn...”
Just out of curiosity:
Why would a social liberal rhino as POTUS do any different? Having an (R) after a name guarantees what, exactly?
Once the situation has devolved to the point where it’s all about which POS to choose from a steaming pile of S’s, it is way way past too late.
I’ll be one of those voting for whatever value I can find to salvage out of this crap, but I do wonder why so many seem to think that getting the (R) in at POTUS means anything of any value if it’s just another quasi-leftard, except for some vestiges of party affiliation.
If she wants money, it's your kid too. If she wants to kill it, it's all hers to do as she will.
Those who were pro-slavery were free.
Those who are pro-abortion are born.
Abortion is nothing if not a cause for convenience.
And how EXACTLY would voting for a pro-abortion Republican for president be any different?
So have the SCOTUS rescind Roe V. Wade and move along!
I have some news for you...If and when the Court may overturn Roe v Wade, Hillary Clinton will trump it with a Court stacked by her.
Thank God Bill Clinton isn't eligible.
Cases are “brought” the Supreme Court only if 4 out of 9 justices vote to hear the case. So, in a certain way, the justices do hand-pick cases that they want to hear and rule on. Don’t be fooled into thinking justices with certain agendas don’t get together and vote to grant cert to cases they want to have a say in.
Thats what I just said. However, McCain would probably compromise with Fatassed Teddy and make the court just like Hers Highness, just to be a maverick.
Ron Paul is starting to resonate. Can’t believe it.
Finding such a case isn't enough. There was such a case in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), but the desired overruling did not occur. Also, Justice Scalia doesn't want the Court to make a Human Life Amendment type of ruling. He just wants the Court to stay out of the issue; like it did before 1973.
The so-called “social conservatives” who have sworn to stay home ..... to do so is. objectively, a vote for shrillary, .... a conservative court will be squandered at the altar of “principle”
Why is this so hard to fathom ?
***********************************************
We understand full well that a vote for McCain (anything to get along with Teddy!!) or Rudy (”I think Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is a great jurist!”) is identical to a vote for Hill as far as the SC goes AND much more destructive to the RNC which is badly in need of a tune-up ,,, if we get Rudy or McVain it won’t be fixed with a tune-up ,, it’ll have to be scrapped... and that would put us on the same path as ancient Rome and Greece with a big Wil-E-Coyote rocket strapped on...
Well, to each who responded in generally the same vein
“What dif will electing a Rino make ?”
The difference is, the POSSIBILITY, however infinitesimal, that when the likely 3 judges retire in the next administration they will not be replaced with paramours of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It’s a chance, maybe a slim one, versus a GUARANTEED liberal court appointed by the beast.
I prefer slim odds to no odds at all.
Right-wing, evangelical, conservative, heterosexual, white male here. Any questions ?
“Justice Anonin Scalia, whose brain I would want if I did not have my own...” -ElRushbo
IMO, it's either Mitt Romney....or come January, it's Madam President Hillary Clinton.
His opinion is right, but maybe impractical. The legislators are not going to take responsibility for an issue that might cost them their (sinecure)(seat)(head, hat and overcoat), so they are not going to do the right thing, but rather what the polls suggest— or nothing, which is an easy choice since that is what they do best in our vapid legislatures when it is time for decisiveness. The legislative branch just rolled over and smiled when Roe vs. Wade was decided. They could have, and should have represented the people then on the issue, or at any time since, but that would take some stand-up guys and gals willing to get out on thin ice. What is the chance of finding a stand-up guy or gal in Congress or the state legislatures?
Until a better class of politicians emerges in this country, perhaps, despite Mr. Justice Scalia’s concerns, it might be better since the courts preempted jurisdiction on the abortion issue to make them ride it on out to wherever it’s going. The tide seems to be turning against Roe vs. Wade, and when it is overturned, maybe the proper political processes can deal with the issue. Anything the courts take over, the legislators are happily going to leave alone. The separation of powers assumes a more equal distribution of talent, integrity and common sense between the three great estates than there appears to be. The role of the Fourth Estate, the press, of course, was not thoroughly contemplated way back when old Franklin and the boys were working up this Republic, but no matter what standard of talent, integrity and common sense might have been imagined with respect to them, they have failed to live up to it— unless, perhaps, the standard was no talent, no integrity, and no common sense either. When the fifth estate— Joe Sixpack, has to be mentioned as the arbitrer-in-charge, that means the government in general has failed to serve the people. Joe Sixpack has to work more days per week than the legislators or the courts or the executive branch, and work harder so the cost of these worthies can be met. These worthies know perfectly well what Joe Sixpack wants and needs. Why not give it to him? Why keep responding solely to Brucey and Lance, Brundhilde and Pornella, Daphnis and Chloe, Franny and Zooey, and others not named here but whom most of us can name in our hearts, and who have well-paid lobbies and special interest groups hitting on the legislators in their names (whether they know it or not).
J Scalia has it just right on the abortion issue.
Reverse Roe v Wade, send the issue back to the states where it resided for 200 years. This immediately would undo the federal law and allow existing state laws that were frozen at the time Roe went into effect, to be reinstated by default. Then the people will decide what laws will govern them.
whaaat?! SCALIA thinks it ought to be LEFT TO THE STATES?!? Gee, who does that sound like......Hmmmmmmmmmitt?
Socons don't want this. They want an extra-Constitutional decision in the opposite direction. Same with gay marriage. Usta be school prayer.
[In a round about way they do “find” cases, there have been plenty of cases that dealt with abortion that the Court could have used to overturn Roe]
So the court has turned down a number of cases on abortion?
The best Supreme Court justice in my lifetime. God grant him continued good health and longevity.
The culture of death must be terminated before any law will have effect. The courts are certainly a tool in this battle and are necessary in order to protect the very lives of the innocent. Yet we are losing hearts and minds to liberal propaganda diminishing the value of the most precious gift of life.
This battle needs to be fought on more front than just the court. People who make that the primary issue are correct in addressing one of the problems, but we can't change the situation until we change the casual attitude the public has towards infanticide.
Wish I had a solution. While changing the law may stop openly practiced abortion, until minds and hearts are changed to make the slaughter unthinkable to begin with, it will continue.
OTOH, there should be NO PUBLIC FUNDING of any abortion. There should be NO PUBLIC COUNSELING towards any abortion. There should be NO PUBLIC funding of any foreign entities that engage in infanticide.
These are battles we should be fighting in the courts as well. They should be winnable as well. Yet I think that again, hearts, minds and souls should be the target with the courts as an additional primary target.
Do I have any solutions? Don't I wish...however I can say with confidence that unless we address what I'm stating, the battle will continue to go against us as a general consensus on the matter.
The battle over abortion needs to be won at a societal/cultural level. It can’t simply be legislated, because you can’t change people’s hearts simply by changing a law.
**************************************
You are both right and wrong in my view ... the courts took the issue away from the people and made it a national issue ,, one too large for us to fight on a societal level ... overturning Roe will put us on an even playing field where we can win one city/county/state at a time..
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.