N.C. lawyers listen as Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling

http://www.charlotteobserver.com ^ | June 21, 2013 | Michael Gordon

[NKP_Vet]

ASHEVILLE With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.

Why?

We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.

In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.

[savagesusie]

Justice is a Virtue—and our moral standards are Judeo-Christian Ethics which is fundamental to our Founding Documents-—that determined Right and Wrong. It is the foundation (First Principle) of our Legal system-—not the Ethics of Satanists, Saudis and Afghanis, where sodomy mocks God’s Design and Natural Law.

Our Rights come from God in the USA-—not from the State—or Courts—and there is no Right to Vice (sodomizing others)—in a “Justice” system. It is quiet clear—and Right Reason is part of any “Just” law. When laws cease to be Just—they cease to be law.

This insanity inside our courts which promotes Vice instead of Virtue-—has to end or we will collapse-—as Cicero stated any unjust “legal” system would.

All justices who force Vice into “Just” laws have to be impeached.

[LibLieSlayer]

JUSTICE THOMAS is the only AMERICAN serving on the SCOTUS.

LLS

[wolfman23601]

I disagree. The one thing I have learned about the seemingly bipolar court is that they almost never place any checks or limits on the power of the Federal government. I think DOMA survives since it is a federal law.

[NKP_Vet]

“Given that only 12 of 50 states have adopted it”

How many of those states by an actual vote of the people. In most states that have “adopted it”, a liberal state legislature passed it and an Obama-loving liberal governor signed off on it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[JCBreckenridge]

[citation needed]

I provided a citation for mine - the Reynolds decision.

[PapaNew]

Not sure what he means by "not qualified" but SCOTUS is certainly not constitutionally qualified to be ruling on these state-specific matters that are outside the legitimate constitutional scope of the federal government's limited powers.

Truth and right will prevail sooner or later. Sometimes when evil becomes more assertive, it may be a sign of the soon coming end to its prevalence.

[OneWingedShark]

Not sure what he means by "not qualified" but SCOTUS is certainly not constitutionally qualified to be ruling on these state-specific matters that are outside the legitimate constitutional scope of the federal government's limited powers.

And therein lies the problem: the USSC views everything as their constitutional scope. That's one reason why Roe v. Wade is damaging; it's one reason why the Commerce Clause has been stretched and twisted so: to put issues that are not legitimately theirs into their purview.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I half expect SCOTUS to deny legal standing (all federal courts) in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which would result in the CA Supreme Court decision being upheld rather than overturning the 9th Circuit on the "ripeness" of the issue. We get the decisions tomorrow!

[PapaNew]

Yup. It seems that the founders knew that with the Revolutionary War won and Constitution ratified, the fight to maintain a free constitutional republic wasn't over, but just shifted focus on the newly formed U.S. government.

Unfortunately, that focus and vision has steadily dimmed.