Posted on 11/21/2004 12:08:57 AM PST by AM2000
The U.S. Supreme Court should leave it to voters to decide whether same-sex marriage or assisted suicide should become legal, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday during a speech at the University of Michigan.
Scalia told an overflow audience at Rackham Auditorium that in the past 40 years a majority of the high court has interpreted the Constitution to create rights - such as abortion - that the framers never guaranteed. Scalia says he is an "originalist" because he tries to stick to what he thinks the Constitution meant to the society of the late 18th century, when it was written.
Scalia said that's why he supports the death penalty and believes abortion shouldn't have become legal by the court's ruling in 1973. It should have been up to voters in the states to pass laws or amend the Constitution if they wanted to make abortion legal, he said.
The same is true for same-sex marriage or assisted suicide today, he said. The questions shouldn't be up to the court to decide.
"I don't think the Constitution says anything about it," Scalia said in response to a question about his view of same-sex marriage. "If the states want to adopt it, fine. If they don't want to adopt it, fine."
He said the only thing he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend.
Scalia's remarks came during an afternoon speech before about 1,100 people, including about 10 protesters who walked silently up the aisles of the auditorium holding anti-Scalia signs during the first minute of his speech. "Is this an accepted form of freedom of speech here," he said to laughs as he waited for the protesters to leave.
An additional small group of protesters gathered outside on the front steps of Rackham, carrying signs supporting gay rights and other issues they said Scalia opposes. But Scalia received a mostly warm reception from the crowd. Some audience members started lining up outside Rackham at 1 p.m. for the 4:30 speech. More than 250 people were turned away. Some latecomers were able to watch from two televisions in the lobby, and a speaker was set up outside the building so the overflow crowd could listen to the speech.
Scalia indicated that he's aware his opponents see him darkly, as someone who wants to curtail rights. But he said he'd have sided with the anti-segregationists in two landmark Supreme Court rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1878, and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Scalia also said he cast the fifth and deciding vote in 1989 to uphold the right to burn the American flag. The next morning, however, he joked that he caught some heat from his wife, whose political leanings are conservative.
"She's scrambling the eggs and humming, 'It's a Grand Old Flag,' " he said to laughs. "True story ... I don't need that."
Scalia was invited to speak on campus by the U-M Law School, the same school he suggested should lower its standards to attract minority students instead of using affirmative action. Scalia was on the losing side of the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in June 2003 that upheld the school's admissions policy.
During a question-and-answer session with the audience, Scalia said some research shows students are harmed when they attend a school that has entrance standards they can't meet.
"The fact is they were not helped to be on too fast a track," Scalia said, before telling the questioner that affirmative action in the Law School's case "makes you feel good but doesn't help them."
Scalia dodged some questions, chiefly those on gun control and whether Congress will require future appointees to the Supreme Court to uphold the abortion rights ruling in Roe v. Wade. "I got the question and I'm not going to answer it," he said. "The Senate and I have an understanding. They leave me alone and I leave them alone."
If President Bush names a new chief justice to replace William Rehnquist, who has cancer, many political observers expect a bruising confirmation battle. Scalia said that's one indication that people understand that the Supreme Court now writes social policy - whether they agree with that development or not. People fight to appoint judges who agree with their views, he said, instead of justices who know the law. It's not ideal, he said, but it's better than having a court of unaccountable aristocrats.
For many of the people in the audience, Scalia was all charm.
"I thought he was terrific," said Helen Gierman, 70, of Northville Township. "I thought that his remarks were timely and in keeping with this area. He's a brilliant man. He really is."
The protesters came from a collection of student groups. The group who walked out of the auditorium were graduate students and faculty members of the School of Social Work and Public Health. After taking their seats, they kept their protest signs hidden in backpacks until Scalia began speaking.
"He had a pretty impressive record and for those of us who are really concerned about social justice, he has a pretty depressing record," said Derek Smith, one of the students.
Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid may support Scalia for Chief Justice (but not Clarence Thomas)
Riiiiiiight, so Arnie can be president. And then Terayyyyysa.
Scalia indicated that he's aware his opponents see him darkly, as someone who wants to curtail rights. But he said he'd have sided with the anti-segregationists in two landmark Supreme Court rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1878, and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.The writer needs a fact checker. Plessy was decided in 1896.
Scalia is extremely sound on the law as written, but IMO he's a little bit too trusting of the whims of the majority. The Framers placed strict limits on what government could do, and made it tough to loosen those limits, with good reason.
-Eric
But they'd only be able to redefine it in states where they actually have a majority. Conservatives would be able to define it in the rest of the country.
It seems clear that the difficulty of ratifying Amendments has contributed to the rise of judicial activism, a very negative result.
And just who defines what "social justice" consists of sweetie pie? You? A wet behind the ears little twerp who hasn't experienced much of anything yet? No thanks. I don't want some judge to define for me either.
He talks one game, but I'm more than certain that when he votes, he votes my way.
Scalia is right on when he says things like abortion and gay rights shouldn't be ruled on by the supreme court because its not in the Constitution. It's a state issue.
"He said the only thing he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend. "
I don't know what he's getting at with this. Seems to me that if it was easier to amend it would look like some kind of unrecognizable frankenstein monster in another hundred years.
Yes a very negative result but the difficulty in amending the constitution is not the culprit, it is the left who will have their way even at the cost of the constitution whom are to be indicted.
The constitiution is not just a document which ought to be saved for its own sake, or for history's sake but for my sake because I have an inherited stake in its pristine configuration. It expresses in a social contract, my rights, which I have inherited from the sacrifice, blood and sweat of my ancestors and to which I am entitled free of the swindling by the left which must have its way.
Agreed.
In other words, just throw it out?
I'm likely one of the few that believes our Constitution was Divinely inspired, and has served us quite well all these years. Leave it alone.
Oh yes, and I'll take a pass on judicial activism too.
Then our judges need to be reminded of their job descriptions. The provisions for ammending our Constitution were intended solely for very extraordinary circumstances, and certainly not intended to make it a "Living" document. Our Founding Fathers did not craft the Constitution to be flexible...they crafted it instead to guarantee our Rights in perpetuity. Any attempts to modernize the Constitution should be met with grave concern, for the stakes are unimaginably high. Every liberty we take for granted today could quickly become a memory.
Rule by referendum/popular will = Rule of the Sheeple.
Better to fight the judicial activism than to live with amendments that were too hastily passed.
Sounds good to me, hehe. Where is that map of red states vs blue states?
I am so glad our Founding Fathers had greater insight and fundamental patriotism.
If the Constitution were easier to change, etc., it would be 1000 pages in length by now as each passing whim came, got an amendment, went.
LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, except for good cause. Whims are not good causes.
Just in the last few years, some suggested amendments have included:
==Allowing Presidents to run for more than 2 terms (specifically, so Bill Clinton could have run, but now that Bush is President, the libs aren't crying to allow a 3rd term).
==Allowing foreign born to run for the Presidency (Orin Hatch).
==Allowing illegals to vote (Orin Hatch needs to consider retirement).
==Doing away with the Electoral College and electing by popular vote (2000 when Al Gore got more popular votes) (but not in 2004 since George Bush got more popular votes).
Etc.----Whim changes are not good for America's future.
Yes, yes and yes. The underlying issue here is whether we have majoritarian rule or not. The elites have gradually won over the citizenry to believe that there is a masterful and elite way to change the common culture as well as its welfare by changing the interpretation of the law.
As far as the dangers to the Country, since when do the people's beliefs not deserve antagonism from the law?
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.