Posted on 03/14/2002 5:50:19 AM PST by wwcc
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.
"It says what it says, and it ought not to be twisted," he said.
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.
"We have an enduring Constitution, not a living one," Scalia said.
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.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them. [ps 139:14-16] This passage shows that God knits us together in the womb - quite clearly.
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; [is. 44:24]
Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. [is 44:2]
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. [is 49:1]
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. [jer 1:5]
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. [luke 1:31]
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [lu 1:41] - what leapt in her womb? a fetus?
These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, [pro 6:16-17]
There you go. That should be clear enough.
Doesn't matter. I wasn't headed your way. But if I change my mind I'm sure there'll always be another. In the meantime you might read the rest of the thread. I think you'll find there's more than one interesting trip to take.
My counterargument to your argument would be this:
It may currently be true that the definition of person varies based on the context, but I don't believe that it should. It should be easy to specify what a person is, so that regardless of the situation, we all know what we are talking about when we use the word "person".
So even if the Constitution is not currently concerned with private crimes such as murder and theft (and I don't believe that it ever should be directly), it seems that it would be a good idea for the Constitution to clearly define what is meant by a "person".
Then if individual states want to craft laws that allow some persons to be killed in certain situations, they would at least have to own up to the fact that that is indeed what they are doing.
The Constitution could merely define a human being as being so from the point of conception without even mentioning abortion or any other consideration. Then all of the states would have to recraft their laws accordingly. They could still make abortion legal, but at least they would have to admit it was the killing of an innocent and non-threatening person.
There is a large--and not entirely consistent-- body of law over when a corporation is a "person" under the Constitution and when it isn't.
Likewise, I understand that some old buildings are registered as "persons" in order to protect them from the wrecking ball.
This only makes my case stronger: if corporations cannot be ended (killed?) willy-nilly, nor historical buildings, then similar protections should be afforded actual human beings.
It would actually be instructive (and helpful if what you say is true regarding the current ambiguity of corporate law) to have all entities that can be declared "persons" described in one law. If this so offends people (i.e. associating humans with victorian houses and Enron) then maybe we might start to clarify things in these areas as well.
Except of course in the case of rape. It is unconscionable to me that that seed be allowed to sprout in an unwilling woman.
"Except of course in the case of rape. It is unconscionable to me that that seed be allowed to sprout in an unwilling woman."
So the child pays with its life because its father is a rappist?
Actually, that is the lie, that it is constitutional. The Warren Court really entered dangerous territory when it started ruling ex nihilo contrary to precedent and to the constitution, when they began to "excercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT" ( Federalist 78). The as gross abuse was committed by the executive in so far as it executed the WILL of the courts. For as the Hamilton wrote, the Supreme Court "may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." ( ibid. )
But that is not to address the real crime and undermining committed. The real effect was a usurpation of the constitution (through unconstitutional "judgments"), creating precedent and repeating willful judgments on the basis of that precedent, leading to a general undermining of the authority and legitimacy of the laws for some (like many on FR) and a disdain for the authority of the constitution by others (the ignorant and the libs).
And it presents a dilemna for current justices even of good intent: how to restore the constitution? To restore it would require admission that it has been usurped and an overturning (literally a revolution) of the scores of willful judgments, now precedents of usurpation. We live in a constitutional crisis as the recent Bush-Gore election has shown and as any justice who honors the constitution must admit.
It is not nor ever has been the case that the constitution is a living document, as Oliver Holmes insinuated, the father of Court usurpation. There have always been and always will be different ways to interpret laws and even parts of the constitution, but the degree of variance of interpretation has limits imposed by the meaning of words themselves. (Indeed part of the confusion is caused by some schools of hermeunetics which deny that words have any meaning at all, but we need not address them since their own conclusions prove their arguments meaningless. Moreover, they are intellectual and consequently political anarchists by the logic of their arguments.) The Constitution is undeniably a document of enduring meaning, our greatest inheritance from the Founders. A sound constitution is all that prevents democracy from being tyrrany, for democracy without an enduring law can only end and swiftly in tyrrany, as many have shown, Aristotle foremost, but also our Founders. The living text argument is merely a subtle tactic for undermining that foundational text of our great country. They could not impose their will through legal means and so set out to overtake the most vulnerable institution of our country, initiated by Franklin f*%$ing Delanore Roosevelt (as some of my friends unfondly call him) by packing the court. And yet not those pack of wolves are criticized but rather radicals like Scalia who understand our need for enduring law to protect us from the impulses of a tyrranous majority.
J Walsh posts pretty much the same pictures you do and makes the same point - abortion is murder and lots of pictures of dead, late-term fetuses. The difference between you and he is that he can listen and understand, question, dispute, and recognize good points. You can't.
You assert your position as if it were absolutely indisputable, then show a lot of pictures, write in BIG script, and follow with personal insults.. That's not arguing.
There are times when one should compromise because it brings one closer - realistically - to one's goal. And times when one shouldn't because it doesn't. You seem incapable of making the distinction. You're an intolerant ideologue, self-righteous and foolish. And un-American.
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.