8mm
Posted on 01/25/2008 5:22:21 PM PST by wagglebee
Starkville, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Justice Antonin Scalia told students at Mississippi State University on Thursday that the nation's high court shouldn't be determining the legality of key moral issues like abortion. He said the high court is no more suited to determine if abortion should be legal than the average voter.
Scalia is a long-time proponent of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting state's have the ability to determine their own abortion laws.
“What I am questioning is the propriety, indeed, the sanity of letting value-laden decisions such as these be made for the entire society,” Scalia told the students in a speech.
“Even if there were scientific right answers, there would be no reason to believe that law-trained professionals could discern those answers better than say medical doctors or engineers or ethicists or Mr. Joe Six Pack," Scalia added, according to an Associated Press report.
“Our judges’ lack of special qualification to deal with such questions is disguised by the fact that they provided their answers in classic legal opinion form. It is blindingly clear that judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral,” Scalia said.
Scalia said, as recently as October, that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution.
In a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture, he reconfirmed that view.
He said that notion is not guided by his Catholic views but by his understanding of the Constitution and his perspective as a "strict originalist" and "legal positivist."
"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn't say it doesn't say."
"I don't agree we are in an era of narrow constitutional interpretation. There are still sweeping decisions out there," Scalia added.
"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.
Pro-life advocates hope that another justice with the same views as Scalia can be added to the court to join with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to overturn Roe.
His opinion is right, but maybe impractical. The legislators are not going to take responsibility for an issue that might cost them their (sinecure)(seat)(head, hat and overcoat), so they are not going to do the right thing, but rather what the polls suggest— or nothing, which is an easy choice since that is what they do best in our vapid legislatures when it is time for decisiveness. The legislative branch just rolled over and smiled when Roe vs. Wade was decided. They could have, and should have represented the people then on the issue, or at any time since, but that would take some stand-up guys and gals willing to get out on thin ice. What is the chance of finding a stand-up guy or gal in Congress or the state legislatures?
Until a better class of politicians emerges in this country, perhaps, despite Mr. Justice Scalia’s concerns, it might be better since the courts preempted jurisdiction on the abortion issue to make them ride it on out to wherever it’s going. The tide seems to be turning against Roe vs. Wade, and when it is overturned, maybe the proper political processes can deal with the issue. Anything the courts take over, the legislators are happily going to leave alone. The separation of powers assumes a more equal distribution of talent, integrity and common sense between the three great estates than there appears to be. The role of the Fourth Estate, the press, of course, was not thoroughly contemplated way back when old Franklin and the boys were working up this Republic, but no matter what standard of talent, integrity and common sense might have been imagined with respect to them, they have failed to live up to it— unless, perhaps, the standard was no talent, no integrity, and no common sense either. When the fifth estate— Joe Sixpack, has to be mentioned as the arbitrer-in-charge, that means the government in general has failed to serve the people. Joe Sixpack has to work more days per week than the legislators or the courts or the executive branch, and work harder so the cost of these worthies can be met. These worthies know perfectly well what Joe Sixpack wants and needs. Why not give it to him? Why keep responding solely to Brucey and Lance, Brundhilde and Pornella, Daphnis and Chloe, Franny and Zooey, and others not named here but whom most of us can name in our hearts, and who have well-paid lobbies and special interest groups hitting on the legislators in their names (whether they know it or not).
J Scalia has it just right on the abortion issue.
Reverse Roe v Wade, send the issue back to the states where it resided for 200 years. This immediately would undo the federal law and allow existing state laws that were frozen at the time Roe went into effect, to be reinstated by default. Then the people will decide what laws will govern them.
whaaat?! SCALIA thinks it ought to be LEFT TO THE STATES?!? Gee, who does that sound like......Hmmmmmmmmmitt?
Socons don't want this. They want an extra-Constitutional decision in the opposite direction. Same with gay marriage. Usta be school prayer.
[In a round about way they do “find” cases, there have been plenty of cases that dealt with abortion that the Court could have used to overturn Roe]
So the court has turned down a number of cases on abortion?
The best Supreme Court justice in my lifetime. God grant him continued good health and longevity.
The culture of death must be terminated before any law will have effect. The courts are certainly a tool in this battle and are necessary in order to protect the very lives of the innocent. Yet we are losing hearts and minds to liberal propaganda diminishing the value of the most precious gift of life.
This battle needs to be fought on more front than just the court. People who make that the primary issue are correct in addressing one of the problems, but we can't change the situation until we change the casual attitude the public has towards infanticide.
Wish I had a solution. While changing the law may stop openly practiced abortion, until minds and hearts are changed to make the slaughter unthinkable to begin with, it will continue.
OTOH, there should be NO PUBLIC FUNDING of any abortion. There should be NO PUBLIC COUNSELING towards any abortion. There should be NO PUBLIC funding of any foreign entities that engage in infanticide.
These are battles we should be fighting in the courts as well. They should be winnable as well. Yet I think that again, hearts, minds and souls should be the target with the courts as an additional primary target.
Do I have any solutions? Don't I wish...however I can say with confidence that unless we address what I'm stating, the battle will continue to go against us as a general consensus on the matter.
The battle over abortion needs to be won at a societal/cultural level. It can’t simply be legislated, because you can’t change people’s hearts simply by changing a law.
**************************************
You are both right and wrong in my view ... the courts took the issue away from the people and made it a national issue ,, one too large for us to fight on a societal level ... overturning Roe will put us on an even playing field where we can win one city/county/state at a time..
“The best Supreme Court justice in my lifetime. God grant him continued good health and longevity.”
Amen.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-The Declaration of Independence
Our Constitution's Preamble says:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Fifth Amendment says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment Says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Our government has gotten around providing protection for the unborn in the same way it allowed slavery, by claiming an unborn person is not a person. One way to change this is by passing Duncan Hunter's Life at Conception Act. All it needs is a majority in Congress and a President's signature. It would declare the unborn persons who would be protected under our Constitution. We could overturn it back to the states for restrictions, but it would still be unconstitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment says no state has can deprive someone of the God given rights to life, liberty, and property without due process of law. The main purpose of our federal government is to protect these rights. If states' are denying people of these rights, the federal government may step in. We could pass a Human Life Amendment, which would also end abortion. Either of these two ways are fine. The Life At Conception Act is quicker, while the Human Life Amendment is the most permanent.
That said, overturning Roe vs. Wade is better than nothing, even though the unborn would still not be recognized as persons in this country, at least not in all states.
Ultimately, things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal, but we will likely never get rid of them altogether. These things still must be illegal because they are wrong and harmful to the victims. Abortion is the same way.
I agree. We must pass the Right to Life/Unborn Personhood Act. It is the fastest and most efficient way of protecting human life.
Duncan Hunter has offered it for ten years. Some people/groups/politicians have not gotten behind it for a variety of reasons, but we all need to get together and get it done.
It’s a shame we could not have gotten it through when we had a Republican majority in the House and Senate. Bush most likely would have signed it. I worry it will be awhile before we ever have the majority in Congress and have a pro-life President together again.
As our Founders meant it to be.
Our system doesn't work well primarily because we don't use it the way it was designed to work. Funny how that works.
This post (<-click) attempts to explain how FDR's ignoring of the 10th A. protected powers of the states in order to establish his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs ultimately led to the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade, in my opinion. Note that the post first shows constitutional problems in the opinions of two non-abortion, state power related cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different perspective.
(If anybody feels inclined to comment about the above referenced post then please do so in this thread.)
Finally, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread corruption in the federal government, particularly where the 10th A. protected powers of the states are being ignored. The people need to quit sitting on their hands and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
Yes, a shame. Unfortunately, there are some groups who seem to prefer other options- like a Human Life Amendment, or incremental steps, or returning it to the states by overturning Roe.
I think the justices should be charged with high treason for directly violating the Constitution.
In the meantime, prolifers need to educate the public and each other about the fact that innocent human life is protected by the Constitution, and that abortion was never a constitutional right.
I find many passionate, experienced prolifers who do not seem to know anything about the Constitution, its history, and/or the RTL Act. In fact, I have yet to meet one, except at FR, who understand the illegality of what took place. I myself thought the RTL Act was the Human Life Amendment up until I started paying attention to Duncan Hunter and read the document. I even meet academics and lawyers who know nothing about the RTL Act. Most people seem to think they can only argue against abortion on moral grounds, and don’t realize that the Constitution is on our side.
I am amazed by the amount of pro-lifers who believe abortion should be illegal because the unborn are persons, yet they believe states should have the choice as to whether or not to protect these persons. States can’t take away God-given rights.
Let me invite you to Pro Life America. I’ve met some of the most conservative and dedicated pro-lifers there. Of course I’ve met some at Free Republic as well. :) I frequent both forums. There are pro-aborts to contend with but a solid pro-life majority. There are a couple liberals there who are also pro-life. If you send me a FReepmail, I’ll give you my screenname over there, as it is different.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/categories.cfm?catid=7&entercat=y
Of course Justice Breyer said nothing whatsoever about subordinating the Consitution to international will, and the posted “headline” was not part of the original article.
In fact his point was precisely that the Consitution is subordinated to individual rights and that international opinion may be evidence of rights not specifically set forth in the text of the document. You may disagree about the specific right in question here, but the structure of the argument itself is faithful to both the letter and the spirit of the Ninth Amendment.
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.