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.
Can we have this engraved in the facade of the Supreme Court building?
The legality of abortion should be limited to the states and their legislatures. State A should be allowed to make abortion legal in their state and State B should be allowed to ban abortion in their state.
Unless a Constitutional amendment legalizing or banning abortion is passed and ratified it should be a state matter.
An honest statement of the facts and a reasonable opinion on how the matter should be handled. But...
"Every time you're selecting a Supreme Court justice, you're conducting a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution ought to mean," he said.
...a statement of the political realities which reveal that the Constitution is in fact a living document. Every time a political appointment is made the meaning of the document changes. Oliver Wendall Holmes recognized, and approved of, this more than 100 years ago. So did Chief Justice Marshall almost at the founding of the country.
9-0, 7-2, 5-4, what's the diff? /sarcasm>
Repeat a lie often enough...
At the root of this is the ultimate societal poison - moral relativism, i.e., There is no right and wrong - the powers that be decide what is right and what is wrong. This is a form of relativism.
The liberal relativists among us use the judiciary as their instrument of power to mold and shape the laws according to their twisted agenda. Ergo, it is no surprise that the Democrats so vehemently oppose any nomination to ANY court that is pro-life or pro-truth or a constitutionalist. It is quite plain that the godless liberals want to use the judiciary to illegally and tyrannically impose their will on the American people.
Moral relativism is not only evil, it's illogical and absolutely absurd, and it's easily refuted. Yes, 90% of Americans buy into this baloney because they are like gullible little sheep.
Either there will be a cultural and spiritual revolution in America, or America will end up on the trash heap of history in short order.
|
To find all articles tagged or indexed using |
||||
| click here >>> |
SASU™ |
<<< click here | ||
|
Master Bump List |
||||
They say faith is reliance on things unseen and faith is the basis for religion so therefore the government is trying get us to beleive in a kind of religion.
Yes, as the postmodernists claim, there is no absolute truth -- except the absolute truth that there is no absoute truth.
Earl Warren was long gone by the time of Roe v. Wade. The Burger Court is what you mean.
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.
"...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....."
I think Scalia is partially correct. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion and abortion rights. However, the Declaration of Independence, our "Founding Charter", if you will contains the above quote. By permitting the murder of a human being being in the womb, our courts have violated that foundation charter, as they are depriving people of a basic inalienable right, endowed by their Creator, i.e. the right to life.
You usually don't need to read very far to find the biased distortions. It was 7-2 if I recall. And nobody "handed" anything to GWB. He won 271 electoral votes. Case closed.
Bears repeating. And it should be about abortion, not "choice" or "reproductive health" or any other euphamism that is designed to hide the subject of the debate rather than to inform.
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.