Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia sees no abortion right in Constitution
Buffalo News ^ | 03/14/2002 | STEPHEN WATSON

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-495 next last
To: exmarine
There is no right and wrong - the powers that be decide what is right and what is wrong.

Not the powers that be but the people alive at the time - at least in a country with a democratic form of government.

Currently, it's the Political Correctniks who've given moral relativism a bad name. But 125 years ago it was Republicans who championed the cause with Oliver Wendall Holmes in the forefront.

Moral relativism is a frightening thing. It seems dangerously close to nihilism or hedonism or amorality. Well, It's a frightening, confusing, and mysterious world we live in. Always has been. Best to face it honestly, with your eyes wide open. Or at least that's how I chose to live my life.

51 posted on 03/14/2002 9:18:24 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
I think we will wallow along a wandering line between the extremes

Wallow? I don't think we're wallowing. As always there are great minds to meet, endless mysteries to explore. If only we have the courage and energy to do so. And as always the kind of world we live in is ours to chose - to a large extent. Try reading Teddy Roosevelt.

52 posted on 03/14/2002 9:25:35 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Chief Inspector Clouseau
Chief Justice Burger's jurisprudence on Roe vs. Wade was explained in an in-depth two part article in the Sunday New York Times many yaers ago. He was on SCOTUS when the case was first argued, as was his lifelong friend and best man Herod Blackmun, who had formerly been general counsel of the Mayo Clinic (paid to argue that whatever doctors do is OK). However, when the case was argued, Justices Harlan and Black were sitting. Each had resigned before a decision could be issued. They were replaced by Rehnquist and Powell. Both Black and Harlan would probably have voted in favor of abortion. Rehnquist voted against Roe vs. Wade and has voted against abortion ever since.

Roe vs. Wade was re-argued for the benefit of the new justices Powell and Rehnquist. It was reasonable to believe that both of the new judges would be against abortion in Roe vs. Wade. Justice Byron White always voted against social revolution such as abortion.

Burger was pro-life as he reveailed in his final vote on the subject before leaving SCOTUS, saying he had long believed that Roe vs. Wade had been wrongly decided. Burger would have been the fourth justice against Roe vs. Wade. He needed one more vote and naturally turned to Herod Blackmun whose views were not yet know even by Burger to be as firmly pro-death as clearly they were later revealed to be. Burger and Blackmun had served as Best Man at each other's weddings. Burger and his wife spent the entire summer with Blackmun and his wife at a lakeside cottege trying to persuade Blackmun and wife that Blackmun should join a pro-life majority.

The decision of Blackmun in the case is a stew of irrationality and historical fantasy and ought to be read by each and every person who cares about this issue on either side. That leaves the question of whether Burger had been converted by Blackmun.

The Chief Justice is not just another vote on SCOTUS nor is he merely first in prestige. The Chief Justice has certain responsibilities to govern the flow of business there. The Chief Justice has many unique powers. Among these is the power to assign the writing of a decision of the majority of SCOTUS to whichever member of the court's majority he chooses. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, then his power in that respect devolves to the senior associate justice in the majority which would have been William O. Douglas.

Blackmun. Harvard law degree or not, was as much of a professional mediocrity as he was a moral embarassment. Powell turned out to be a prudish old fart who generally did not want to think much about cases involving sexuality and did not want to be seen as advancing moral agendas. William O. Douglas was certainly an evil justice but also an evil genius as any reader of his remarkably creative reasoning in Griswold knows.

If we think that the situation of the ongoing American holocaust of the unborn is bad under Blackmun's pathetic decision, flawed in every imaginable respect, pro-lifers ought to thank God that Burger was willing to be a magnificent hypocrite in voting against his conscience in the hope that he could someday fashion a pro-life majority against Blackmun's inferior decision. If the decision had been assigned BY William O. Douglas, it would have been assigned TO William O. Douglas and he probably would have crafted an invincible decision with the help of his old pals like Professor Thomas Emerson of the Yale University School of Law who had been the driving force behind Griswold.

53 posted on 03/14/2002 10:27:18 AM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wwcc
And in related news, major feminist groups reluctantly agreed with Scalia on the subject of abortion, while hockey teams geared up for the first hockey season in Hell.
54 posted on 03/14/2002 10:31:09 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Clearly this man is insane. /sarcasm>

55 posted on 03/14/2002 10:34:08 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wwcc
Antonin Scalia is absolutely right. Listen to him sometime. He is an intelluctual treat. He'd better not retire anytime soon. We need more people who THINK; not feeeeel. He interprets the facts for what they are.
56 posted on 03/14/2002 10:35:09 AM PST by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Oliver Wendell Holmes was the most evil person ever to serve on SCOTUS, thankfully in the minority most of the time. The Confederate bullet that grievously wounded him was a tragic misfortune in that it failed to kill him. You fail in identifying the VIEWS of Holmes with the presumed VIEWS of Theodore Roosevelt to give TR the credit he deserves. Of the two, he was clearly and by far the superior man.
57 posted on 03/14/2002 10:36:55 AM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I oppose abortion, but I agree with you. It is not a federal government matter. It should be left in the hands of the various states.

We would not be in the mess we are in today, if the Supreme Court would have only turned it back to the states to decide for themselves.

In fact, I would say most of the problems and conflicts we have today is because the Supreme Court has jumped into matters better left to the states.

If that means we would have 50 different policies on a thousand different issues, so what!

Let the people of that state decide what is best for them, then it would not matter all that much who was on the Supreme Court.

58 posted on 03/14/2002 10:40:35 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the unborn are considered persons then states can not decide to make it legal to kill them, period. Humans are undeniably persons. If you believe that, then it is an issue of unalienable rights and the federal government is bound to protect them.

59 posted on 03/14/2002 10:42:34 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
...but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either

Well, it is true that the Constitution doesn't explicitly use the word 'abortion', but I would have to say that to allow the butchery of preborn children is to deny them the equal protection of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Cordially,

60 posted on 03/14/2002 10:50:55 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wwcc
"...there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion."

Duh.

I have often asked pro-aborts if they would kindly quote the text of the Constitution which guarantees the "right" to abortion. I have never had any takers.

61 posted on 03/14/2002 11:00:10 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
It will be a difficult if not impossible goal. The liberal, atheistic, Constitutional revisionist, if-it-feels-good-do-it-crowd have convinced many American women, and even some American men - and a good many of those are Catholics and Protestants whose very religion opposes such practise - that it is a "right" for a woman to murder the life within her.

America has become the Moloch of the world.

62 posted on 03/14/2002 11:08:55 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: krb
Grrrrrr...it was the 7-2 decision that branded what the Floriduh Supremes were doing as unconstitutional that sealed Gore's fate, not the 5-4 ruling stopping the selective hand counts.

Just wanted to see that again. :-)

63 posted on 03/14/2002 11:11:01 AM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Theodore Roosevelt, so far as I know him, is a truly heroic figure. It was not my intention to slight him in any way. Oliver Wendall Holmes is generally regarded as one of our great Chief Justices, as is John Marshall - whom you fail to mention. Whether you agree with that assessment or not is beside the point. Both felt that the Constituion - and morality - were molded by the people of the day, not set in stone. By virtue of their position they made their beliefs a reality.
64 posted on 03/14/2002 11:32:53 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You fail in identifying the VIEWS of Holmes with the presumed VIEWS of Theodore Roosevelt to give TR the credit he deserves

I reread my post 51 (to which you replied). I did no such thing.

65 posted on 03/14/2002 11:36:42 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I refer you to "Theodore Rex" by Edmund Morris for a good exposition of the positions of Holmes, Roosevelt, and the Republicans of the time.
66 posted on 03/14/2002 11:43:24 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
...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.

Bovine excrement. The document means the same thing it always has. That you don't like it has absolutely no bearing on its meaning.

Wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up first.

67 posted on 03/14/2002 11:46:41 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Yes, Burger. Warren was the one that removed prayer from schools.
68 posted on 03/14/2002 11:52:56 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
You shown you can curse. Now show you can think.
69 posted on 03/14/2002 11:56:24 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
It will be a difficult if not impossible goal.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. This sounds cliche, but with God, everything is possible. I firmly believe that prayer and action will reduce abortions. We may not see an end in sight ... you are right, even our churches are increasingly silent on abortion.

This doesn't mean that we don't continue the fight. We need to preserve the pro-life cause within our churches, educate the laity to be pro-life, encourage activism; elect pro-life leaders in order to help advance our goals legislatively, but know all the while that legislation alone, the court alone, will not stop abortion.

This isn't a battle to be one on one front. It is a multi-phased battle: the courts, legislation, the hearts and minds of the American people, the churches, everywhere.

But with the grace of God, we can succeed.

God bless!

70 posted on 03/14/2002 11:59:25 AM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
You shown you can curse. Now show you can think.

Aren't you clever. Wish in one hand, defecate in the other, see which one fills up first. Happy?

71 posted on 03/14/2002 12:10:09 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Burger Court is what you mean.

Mmmmm. Burger.

72 posted on 03/14/2002 12:10:42 PM PST by BibleBaseballBarbecue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Aren't you clever.

You, quite evidently, are not since one "thought" appears to be your limit.

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

That's Justice Scalia. Since Supreme Court Justices are political appointees I interpret that to mean;

"Every time a political appointment is made the meaning of the document changes."

You call that "bovine excrement". So tell us what you think (dare I use that word when referring to your mental processes?) Scalia meant.

73 posted on 03/14/2002 12:26:28 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Bumping!
74 posted on 03/14/2002 12:30:15 PM PST by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Olivery Wendell Holmes' and his ilk worked directly against original intent of the founders. For the first 100 years of this nation, William Blackstone provided the base principles of law in America. When it switched to Holmes, relativism took over. Oliver Wendell Holmes is only a hero to the godless relativists.
75 posted on 03/14/2002 1:19:52 PM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wwcc
criticized the process for selecting new Supreme Court justices as being highly political today

it's always been political-- and it's a good thing we don't elect these judges directly, or X42 could already be sitting up there with Hilly.

76 posted on 03/14/2002 1:26:41 PM PST by let freedom sing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The first exponent of the Constitution as a living document was Chief Justice John Marshall ruling in 1803 in Marbury vs. Madison. He knew well the founders and their philosophy. His ruling was, and still is, generally thought to be a work of genius.

It seems to me human beings have never agreed about anything. The 5000 year history of jurisprudence, morality, rhetoric, economics, and social philosophy are an attempt to construct a society around that fact.

I would have thought the many religious wars fought over the "proper" interpretation of the Bible would have taught everyone that there is no "proper" interpretation. But no.

For me Islamic fundamentalists, who are nothing if not moral and religious absolutists, are primitive savages with a medievil view of the world. For you, it seems, their sin is believing in the wrong God.

77 posted on 03/14/2002 1:31:53 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
If a women is a joint benificiary with her unborn child to an estate, would aborting the child be murder for financial gain...

If a man died of a heart attack immediately having sex with his second wife, and a child was conceived as a result of that act, I would expect that child would be regarded legally as the man's heir. If this is so, the argument you cite would be moot since the legal person who would become the heir might not exist in any meaningful sense at the time of the man's death.

78 posted on 03/14/2002 8:57:50 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: scripter
:-)
79 posted on 03/14/2002 9:32:35 PM PST by krb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: wwcc
Now I'd support cloning this man.
80 posted on 03/14/2002 9:34:32 PM PST by wattsmag2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
(((((PING)))))
81 posted on 03/14/2002 10:41:12 PM PST by .45MAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny
"You usually don't need to read very far to find the biased distortions."

The Buffalo News is owned by Warren Buffett, a population-control freak.

82 posted on 03/14/2002 11:14:24 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"Every time you're selecting a Supreme Court justice, you're conducting a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution ought to mean," That's Justice Scalia. Since Supreme Court Justices are political appointees I interpret that to mean; "Every time a political appointment is made the meaning of the document changes."

Scalia's statement is not the same as yours. Scalia would be quick to tell you that the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change no matter how much people like you pretend it does.

His point, which you blithely ignore, is that people are constantly pretending the Constitution means whatever they want it to, and the political appointment of justices reflects that.

Writing in a right to abortion and taking out a right to bear arms outside of the ammendment process is judicial lunacy. The document stands, and any justice who ignores that meaning is first and foremost a liar.

Of course, that is a common liberal failing.

83 posted on 03/15/2002 3:33:25 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: supercat
the argument you cite

It was a question, not an arguement

84 posted on 03/15/2002 5:03:29 AM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Moral relativism is amorality. I could care less about who is Republican and who is Democrat - these labels mean nothing to me. I watch people's feet. O.W. Holmes is no hero.

Moral relativism should have a bad name. It's a poisonous bankrupt illogical and dangerous ethic. It denies truth. If every person in the U.S. became a moral relativists, then they would ALL be wrong.

85 posted on 03/15/2002 5:59:55 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
You denounce moral relativism, but it appears that is exactly what you personally espouse. You are a walking contradiction. If truth exists friend (and it does!), then your arguments are nothing but turkey baloney.

If you would like to defend your ethical system of moral relativism, I will be happy to blow it to pieces for you with simple logic.

86 posted on 03/15/2002 6:04:29 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
His point, which you blithely ignore, is that people are constantly pretending the Constitution means whatever they want it to, and the political appointment of justices reflects that.

The political appointment of justices of the Supreme Court is built into the Constitution. Why? Were the founders so stupid that they couldn't see the consequences?

"People like me" are citizens of the United States and always have been. Thus we're voters and participate in the selection of Justices of the Supreme Court. Were the founders so stupid they couldn't see the consequences?

If "people like me" aren't fit to decide the "true" meaning of the Constitution then who is? Only people like you?

87 posted on 03/15/2002 6:04:33 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
There is NO Constitutional right to an abortion. There is also no Constitutional restriction or prohibition on abortion. It should not be a federal matter.

Hear, hear!

88 posted on 03/15/2002 6:05:59 AM PST by Utopia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
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.

Moreover, the other two didn't even suggest a remedy and it was clear that in the short time remaining, nothing else would be done that would pass court muster anyway.

89 posted on 03/15/2002 6:07:57 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The political appointment of justices of the Supreme Court is built into the Constitution. Why?

So that the process would not be as political as an election. Sorry, the process is specifically designed to remove as much politics as possible. How else would they get to the bench? The hand of God?

90 posted on 03/15/2002 6:10:02 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You denounce moral relativism, but it appears that is exactly what you personally espouse

Where do I denounce moral relativism?

Perhaps I was unclear. I thought I said it was dangerous and that Political Correctniks have given it a bad name in modern times. I also thought I said that it was moral abolutism that was truly dangerous. That's why I referred to Muslims fundamentalists and religious wars.

For me, and many who think like I do, morality is like all other human attempts to understand the world and structure a decent society - an attempt which constantly requires adjustment in response the new experience and new understanding. That not the same thing as saying that all moral systems are equivalent - the error Political Correctiks make and the reason I despise them.

Perhaps the confusion comes because Political Correctiks have appropriated the term Moral Relativism in the same way they've appropriated the term Liberalism. I am more properly a believer in moral uncertainty rather than relativism. It's dangerous because it is uncertain and thus open to misinterpretation. It's dangerous because people crave certainty.

Well, let them crave it. The reality is we live in an uncertain world.

91 posted on 03/15/2002 6:20:41 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Agreed Phantom. Bork had the peculiar notion that if the Constitution was silent, there was no right. But the Constitution presupposes the People possess all possible rights...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.

It is, in fact, the government which is prohibited from meddling where it has no stated authority...

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Too many folks fail to realize these simple truths.

92 posted on 03/15/2002 6:26:17 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wny
And this:
His belief flies against the court's majority decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade,..."

In the first paragraph of the article. Bias coming through as usual at the Buffalo Snews. "flies against" is close to the "flies in the face of" to be no coincidence.

93 posted on 03/15/2002 6:31:19 AM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Moreover, the other two didn't even suggest a remedy and it was clear that in the short time remaining, nothing else would be done that would pass court muster anyway.

But, then again, this is news and you and I are talking facts.

Facts haven't had anything to do with news since at least 1990, probably long before.

Shalom.

94 posted on 03/15/2002 6:32:50 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
If "people like me" aren't fit to decide the "true" meaning of the Constitution then who is? Only people like you?

Ah, the old "interpretation" gambit. Useful whenever you seek to evade the law.

The Constitution is written in clear and concise English. No interpretation needed, unless you are illiterate.

The true meaning of the Constitution is not some dark mystery requiring revelation by liberal witch doctors. The purpose of the liberal witch doctors is to conceal and obfuscate the clear meaning of the Constitution.

95 posted on 03/15/2002 6:35:49 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
So that the process would not be as political as an election. Sorry, the process is specifically designed to remove as much politics as possible. How else would they get to the bench? The hand of God?

Exactly.

"...as possible", you say. Don't you think the founders realized this? Don't you think the founders were aware of human limitations? They were children of the 18th century. Deists for the most part. Familiar in a way that we are not (pre 9/11) with the consequences of religious absolutism. They were trying to build a stable political system - not one immune from change. They would've been the last to claim "absolute" wisdom.

They realized - as any literate person does - that all law is open to interpretation. That differing views can often never be reconciled. That's why we have a Supreme Court. To make a final decision in real time so that action can be taken in real time. In Marbury vs. Madison the Court decided it was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Contitution - above Congress (but not above the people who could amend) - and that interpretation was approved by the founders and has stood the test of time.

96 posted on 03/15/2002 6:35:53 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

To: ArGee
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. 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? Not to mention that it says the decision handed the election to Bush. That is a loaded word if I ever heard one.
98 posted on 03/15/2002 6:39:20 AM PST by Inkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I relish your scorn.
99 posted on 03/15/2002 6:41:50 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Familiar in a way that we are not (pre 9/11) with the consequences of religious absolutism.

OK, that puts the "non" in non-sequitor. Where the hell did that come from? Never mind, I don't want to know.

They were trying to build a stable political system

BZZZT. They could have done that with Emperor George Washington. Try again.

They realized - as any literate person does - that all law is open to interpretation.

Actually, they often appealed to "reason". But in the age of moral relativism, that has now become malleable.

In Marbury vs. Madison the Court decided it was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Contitution

No . . . actually what happened is that the Court decided that it could use the Constitution to determine the outcome of lawsuits and set precidents. It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.

100 posted on 03/15/2002 6:48:21 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-495 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson