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.
Yes, the lie continues to be repeated. The decision to stop the recounts was 7-2. The decision that the court not provide for any other action was 5-4.
But, hey, it's the news, right? We don't expect newsmen to tell the truth, right? They're supposed to be fair and unbiased, not truthful, right?
Shalom.
You forgot "with the attention span of gnats."
Shalom.
Hmmm. Right to privacy? You are correct. But there is a right to property which amounts to the same thing.
Right to a fair trial? What have you been smoking? Or don't you know what "without due process" means?
Shalom.
Actually, truthfully is the only way to get infanticideabortion banned. It's the continuous lying about it that has kept it constitutional so far.
But we're doing the next best thing. We're pulling out all the stops to make sure the women who might have abortions know what they're getting. And we're making sure the doctors who might perform abortions know what they're doing. And the pro-aborts are noticing. That's why they're trying to shut down CPCs and declaring a national abortionist appreciation day. No abortions means no profits, don't you know.
Truth is the only weapon we have - and it's working.
Shalom.
Right to a fair trial? What have you been smoking? Or don't you know what "without due process" means?
The right to privacy encompasses a lot more than just property. As well, "due process" mandates a process, but not necessarily a fair one. (I can send you some old Con Law textbooks, if you like)
Amen! In this case it's not only a shame - it's a holocaust.
Shalom.
Save the textbooks. What right to privacy do you have outside of your own property? What constitutional right? I remember someone who was masturbating in a public restroom complaining at the trial that his right to privacy had been infringed. What right?
The right to privacy isn't even guaranteed in the Bible. But the right to property is. That's the foundation.
As to the difference between due process and "fair due process" - that sounds like someone trying to create an issue. "Due" means "due" means according to law. And our laws mandate a fair trial.
Shalom.
Either fetuses are or are not persons. Since the Constitution is currently not clear on this, it should be made so.
I see no reason for a "person" to cease being so by moving (or being moved) from one state to the next.
We're not talking about whether or not certain actions are allowed by the Constitution in the case of abortion. We are talking about who is to be protected by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't clearly say "who" they are talking about. However, historically we can be certain that they meant to include fetuses in the definition of person. This should be made clear by a simply worded amendment.
Uh, that's my point. You won't find "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights.
However, the legal understanding right to privacy does encompass more than mere property. The right to read books or view TV shows of your liking could be considered one. The right to keep your financial information private from prying government eyes. The right to innocently drive down the highway without being stopped at a ridiculous police checkpoint. The right to not have your e-mails read by the FBI's Carnivore system or your international phone calls tapped by Echelon. The right to attend the Super Bowl without having your face "scanned" by police.
Some of these tie in with First and Fourth Amendment rights. But any lawsuit that would challenge such practices do/would also charge a violation of the "right to privacy" - although, granted, such claims are not always successful.
Oh, and by the way, our legal system is not based on the Bible unless you believe that people should be put to death for adultery, that it should be illegal to approach a woman in a state of menstrual uncleanliness or eat shellfish, etc, etc
The court's majority decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade flies against the actual text of the Constitution, in which no "right to privacy" can be found, which forced the court to invent one by saying that they found "penumbras" in the Bill of Rights.
Hey Chief Justice Burger, is that a penumbra in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?...
A man and women don't "Create" a child they simply put a live wire into the outlet, but that doesn't mean they invented electricity.
I think a strong Constitutional argument could be made that the Constitution does protect the life of an unborn child. Roe v. Wade actually reinforced that argument in a perverse sort of way by developing the 1st trimester standard which later courts have since ignored. Abortion on demand past that date could easily be interperted as the taking of a life without due process.
Absolutely - legal understanding. Not all of our laws are in the constitution. But the underlying basis for all laws that seek to guarantee a right to privacy are based on the right to own property.
As for your other comment - our legal system is most certainly based on the Bible - but it is not a Biblical legal system. The Bible provides the foundation, not every brick.
Shalom.
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.