Scalia sees no abortion right in Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, during a luncheon in Buffalo on Wednesday, re-emphasized his view that women don't have a constitutional right to an abortion. His belief flies against the court's majority decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which found a constitutionally protected right of privacy that covers abortion.

"My votes in abortion cases have nothing to do with my pro-life views," Scalia said after his speech at the Hyatt Regency Buffalo. "They have to do with the text of the Constitution. And there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion."

At times flashing a prickly wit, Scalia also criticized the process for selecting new Supreme Court justices as being highly political today.

And he defended the court's 5-4 decision in the 2000 presidential election that stopped ballot counting in Florida and handed victory to George W. Bush.

The recurring theme throughout Scalia's 40-minute speech, and in answers to audience questions, was the importance of a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution.

Scalia, who is the foremost conservative member of the Supreme Court, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. .

Scalia devoted the bulk of his speech to the clauses in the First Amendment that ensure government may not restrict people's religious practices, nor impose religion on anyone.

Judicial rulings on those clauses - and the entire Constitution - must be based on their text, the authors' original intent or historical practice, he said.

In quoting George Bernard Shaw - using a phrase later appropriated by Robert F. Kennedy - Scalia said those who believe in judicial reshaping of the Constitution "dream things that never were."

The appropriate way to deal with an issue that demands updating judicial precedent or the Constitution is by legislative action or, where appropriate, a constitutional amendment.

After his prepared remarks, Scalia took questions and delved into several hot-button issues.

He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment.

The fight over abortion rights already is heating up, as pro-choice groups dig in for a battle whenever Bush gets to make a Supreme Court appointment.

Picking up that theme, Scalia blamed the the bitter political fights over court nominations on the belief that judges are free to rethink the Constitution.

"Every time you're selecting a Supreme Court justice, you're conducting a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution ought to mean," he said.

Scalia defended the court's decision in the 2000 balloting debacle, saying it properly returned authority in the matter to the Florida Legislature.

Organizers said 930 tickets were sold for the event, sponsored by the Chabad House of Western New York and the University at Buffalo Law School.

That just means that they have to follow the rules. It doesn't mean that it has to be fair. The prisons are full of people who got due process but they didn't a fair trial or justice for that matter.

So, if you have issues with how the laws are made in this country, that's different from the foundation of this country.

But don't talk about justice. We have a legal system, not a justice system. There can be no justice until G-d restores the earth. We should do justice and do our best - but even that requires that everyone involved in our justice system also love righteousness and walk humbly before G-d. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Shalom.

You're quite right. That's what you get from gleaning Latin from Spanish.

What I get is a man who tried to make an issue of spelling in English in an inappropriate context and now tries to weasel out of the consequences of his own spelling errors.

What? Now it's ad hominem.

Reread your stuff. You'll find it full of ad-hominem attacks - much of it cowardly innuendo.

If you remember, when you first accused me of a non-sequitur you asked me not to respond. I honored your wish - apparently inviting your second accusation. I thought now would be the time to lay out my chain of reasoning, to include the steps I omitted. But that's a lot of work and, after reading your latests comments, I doubt it would lead to anything. That's the thought that leads to frustration and fatigue.

So far I think we are in agreement.

Not even close to being in agreement.

Individuals can, and do, make their own decisions about what is moral. Some conform to generally accepted systems. Some don't.

You missed the boat. Yes, people make moral choices daily - that's a no brainer. But they do not decide what is right and what is wrong. That has been decided. "Generally accepted systems" is a form a relativism wherein society decides - this is a form a relativism ("society says relativism"). The fact is that if individuals can decide what is right or wrong, then I cannot be wrong no matter what I do. Thus, if I kick you in the knee and steal all of your stuff, I am right because I say so, and under relativism's principles, you cannot object without contradicting your own bogus ethic.

By the same token, if I am Osama bin Laden, I could care less what American society says about what is right or wrong as muslim society dictates what is right or wrong for me. With this in mind, how do you adjudicate these differences between societies? - based on what universal principle that would apply to all? The Prime Directive? LOL. The answer is: Right and wrong come from God - there is no other answer.

You obviously have not worked out these problems yet.

"There's really something seriously wrong with the people who're at the forefront of the Right when they don't know when to keep their mouths shut."

Scalia's said as much in decisions he's made with the SCOTUS...fact is, he's probably sick of waiting for folks to change the hearts and minds of the American sheeple and this speech is his effort to affect that. As you and I both know, Roe v. Wade is absurdly unconstitutional and needs to be overturned. This won't make abortion illegal, but it would allow States to come to some sort of consensus as to what extent abortion will be allowed...there needn't be a Federal one-size-fits-all solution to the abortion issue.

FReegards...MUD

"There's really something seriously wrong with the people who're at the forefront of the Right when they don't know when to keep their mouths shut."

FReegards...MUD

"...here I am back in the thick of it and wishing I weren't."

Howdy, liberal dude...while I avidly disagree with the morality of killing the unborn, I can at least understand the reasoning of defending some defense of the practice early in a pregnancy. However, Pro-Choicers lose all credibility, IMHO, when they argue in defense of the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS should not be in the business of overruling abortion restrictions enacted by State Legislatures, and Roe v. Wade is simply wrong.

Welcome back to the fray...MUD

But they do not decide what is right and what is wrong. That has been decided.

Who decided? You answer that a little later. God.

The fact is that if individuals can decide what is right or wrong, then I cannot be wrong no matter what I do

That statement is both right and wrong. Society can decide what's right and wrong as far as it's concerned. That's what the law is all about. But it cannot tell individuals, with any certainty, that acting contrary to the dictates of their conscience is right.

bogus ethic....You obviously have not worked out these problems yet.

Condescending and insulting comments. False and self-righteous conclusions. I had hoped to avoid this level of "discourse" with you at least.

Osama bin Laden...could care less what American society says about what is right or wrong as muslim society dictates what is right or wrong for (him)

False. Osama bin Laden, and every other Muslim Fundamentalist, makes the same claim you do - that his ideas of right and wrong come directly from God. Just not your God. We've been down this path many times before.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm of mixed feelings about staying...or leaving. Addiction, you know. Either way you lose something valuable.

Sorry can't argue states rights with you. Don't know enough about it. Nor strictly legal issues.

But I can reiterate my original point. Justice Scalia - using abortion as a lightening rod - argued for a more strict construction than his liberal (old sense) colleagues. He then stated that each time a new Justice is selected a mini-plebescite is conducted on what the Constitution ought to mean. Since selection is a political process people of many views are selected and that inevitably means that the meaning of the Constitution (practically speaking) changes with each Court and each generation. I thus find myself in agreement with Justices Holmes and Marshall, rather than with Scalia and other Conservatives of the present (In the past Conservatives held different views).

Nor do I see any way around it. Human ideas change with the times and with experience. If you want to retain the Constitution you have to allow it to change too. One could argue that amendment should be the only way to do that but, as a practical matter, our present system works pretty well.

On second thought maybe I agree with you. Maybe we should try abortion rights as a state issue. Same with education and perhaps other things as well. People vote with their feet and their money as well as their ballot (probably more honestly and responsibly). A 50 state laboratory would soon decide a lot of things about the consequences of various policies - a lot better than a lot of tired old whites guys arguing can do.:)

The decision that the court not provide for any other action was 5-4.

With the 4 deciding to overturn both their previous decision and the previously accepted portion of the SCOFLAs 7-0 decision: The voting process ended 6 days prior to the EC vote. The 4 wanted to spuriously over-ride that.

"Then, Supreme court Justices should not give speeches."

Not as long as a condition exists whereby the Left will take whatever's said & warp it to the point that what was actually said is unrecognizabe; and, that's precisely what's going to happen sometime down the line here, too.
Not as long as a condition exists whereby a Lamestream media will parrot & buttress any Leftist interpretation of what was said.
Not as long as a condition exists whereby that Leftist interpretation is presented while concurrently DENYING any clarification whatsoever from the opposition side (that's us, btw)

Yea; the who, what, where, when & hows of *a* SCOTUS' decision making process; especially a conservative SCOTUS should be -- no -- MUST be played the same way one plays a hand of Five Card Stud.
See how this POTUS is conducting this war; as far as public statements are concerned?

Same thing.

"...there needn't be a Federal one-size-fits-all solution to the abortion issue."

Fine.
Halleluja.

Let's read about it after a case has been decided whereby the question of abortion is found unconstitional & returned to individual states, OK?

The ammo here for a smear campaign & shameless demagogurery courtesy of the warped Left upon the next SCOTUS nomination, is mind boggling.

One does not tell people what they're going to do in these highly politicized times we live in.

Where in the HELL has this guy been the past 10 years that he'd not to be acutely aware of that little fact of life, anyway?

Reread your stuff.

Did. Curious that the whole thing began when you brought up "religious absolutism" in a context that had nothing to do with it. Oh, and I didn't read into it what you did. Particularly the "cowardly" observation. What, pray, would be courage in this context?

If you remember, when you first accused me of a non-sequitur you asked me not to respond.

Well, there again was the humor at your expense. Honestly, I didn't think it was all that subtle.

I thought now would be the time to lay out my chain of reasoning, . . .

My breath is bated.

. . .to include the steps I omitted. But that's a lot of work . . .

Indeed. I'd suggest saving it. If I am correct it might make a fine dissertation.

But there are practical matters to decide. You know what's going to happen - a problem similar to illegal immigration, similar to export of manufacturing, similar to the control of drugs. And there's the issue of how different can systems be in the various states and still allow us to call ourselves one country. We tried half free, half slave and that didn't work too well. Probably other problems as well. If they can be addressed - and only if they can be addressed - I'm with you. The more freedom for individual choice the better.

Abortion is MURDER plain and simple. No one who disects babies alive in the womb should call himself or herself a doctor. All pro-lifers need to ask their doctors whether they perform abortions. If they respond "yes" we should immediately respond "your fired". Hit 'em in the wallet, that is their god.

Curious that the whole thing began when you brought up "religious absolutism" in a context that had nothing to do with it.

Religious absolutism usually, and especially in this context, is related to moral absolutism. Religion is the fountainhead from which absolute morals spring.

Absolute morality, in this context, is the justification for condemning abortion as murder and as always, under almost all circumstances, immoral.

Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is seen as immoral and corrupt because it is seen as Godless, as against religion and its teachings.

And so on.

"cowardly"

Cowardly refers to the use of innuendo (innundo in tribute to The Philadelphia Story). An example would be the implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance - or is everything just "more humor at my expense"? At some point of course that ceases to be humor and becomes disrespectful bullying or an all-purpose out from responsibility.

Honestly, I didn't think it was all that subtle.

It wasn't. Believe me it wasn't. But I treated it with tolerance and honored it. My mistake.

There is actually quite a lot explicitly stated in the constitution about the right to a fair trial. The due process clause of the 14th amendment. The whole fifth amendment concerns rights in criminal cases. The sixth amendment concerns the right to a fair trial. The fourth amendment concerns searches and arrest warrents.

With respect to the right to privacy we need to remember that we are not limited to the rights enumerated in the constitution. This fallacy is exactly what the opponents of the bill of rights warned against. If we throw out the right to privacy, we throw out a lot of other useful stuff like parental rights and right of parents to direct their children's education among others.
The issue with abortion is that society has a compelling interest to protect innocent people from being killed by others. Hence we have law against murder and manslaughter. Accordingly, abortion, which results in the death of an innocent human being, is not a private decision between a woman and her physician, it is a decision which affects all of society and to use the right to privacy as a lever to gain a "right to abortion" is absurd.

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.