Posted on 10/21/2006 5:35:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
Deeply controversial issues like abortion and suicide rights have nothing to do with the Constitution, and unelected judges too often choose to find new rights at the expense of the democratic process, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday.
Scalia, during a talk on the judiciary sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, dismissed the idea of judicial independence as an absolute virtue. He noted that dozens of states, since the mid-1800s, have chosen to let citizens elect their judges.
"You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably and unqualifiably a good thing," Scalia said. "It may not be. It depends on what your courts are doing."
Scalia added, "The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent."
Scalia, a leading conservative voice after 20 years on the court, said people naturally get upset with the growing number of cases in which a federal court intrudes on social issues better handled by the political process.
"Take the abortion issue," he said. "Whichever side wins, in the courts, the other side feels cheated. I mean, you know, there's something to be said for both sides."
"The court could have said, 'No, thank you.' The court have said, you know, 'There is nothing in the Constitution on the abortion issue for either side,'" Scalia said. "It could have said the same thing about suicide, it could have said the same thing about . . . you know, all the social issues the courts are now taking."
Scalia said courts didn't use to decide social issues like that.
"It is part of the new philosophy of the Constitution," he said. "And when you push the courts into that, and when they leap into it, they make themselves politically controversial. And that's what places their independence at risk."
Justice Samuel Alito Jr., the newest member of the Supreme Court, agreed that "the same thing exists, but to a lesser degree, with the lower courts."
Pro-Life Ping.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
There should be a people vote in each state, not by judicial disgusting old men.
I agree completely; that is the problem; we've never been given the opportunity to vote on it.
That's a very postive sign.
Why should we be able to vote on the issue? It's their body after all. We should keep our laws off of their bodies. [/s]
Don't forget one disgusting old woman.
This whole issue opens a dialogue that some may not like.
If abortion and suicide are truly state issues, that means one state can pass either of them in favor of abortion on demand or legalized suicides. The question is will conservatives be satisfied to let voters in states decide these issues or do conservatives want national laws opposing abortion and/or suicide?
I'm not arguing either side but pointing out the coming discussion once Roe v. Wade is overturned.
I am 100% opposed to abortion and euthanasia for any reason whatsoever; however, barring a Constitutional amendment, I think they should be decided by the individual states.
You think that's gonna happen in our lifetime? I'm more pragmatic, and think NFW.
most of the states had laws against abortion when the black robes found a constitutional right to kill a baby in the womb.
What we need to to do is replace the meme of "judicial independence" with the meme of "judicial responsibility".
It will put the issue in the state houses, close to home where it should be.
Here in Texas I bet it would end up being like alcohol. (Counties can choose to be wet or dry.)
"over to the ... states." Yep. Precisely correct. Not a federal issue.
I agree. It is one thing to say, "This is wrong!" and something entirely different to short-circuit the Constitutional process.
It should be for the voters to determine, state by state. Then the challenge for the pro-life movement would be to convert the voters, state by state. That's the adequate (if not perfect) functioning of our Republic.
I wonder if we'll even see that much progress in our lifetime.
(Incidentally, I think 'partial birth abortion' is too pretty a term. Pro-lifers would do well to use 'head-in-vagina-infanticide' for the appropriate shock value.)
I think we would lose all of the Northeast, the entire West Coast, Maryland, DC, but I think all of the other states would ban or at least severely limit abortion.
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.