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.
>> 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.
I agree. Scalia is way off-base on that one. A difficult amendment process is the hallmark of our Constitution. The problem is not with the amendment process but with one of the amendments, the 17th, which weakened (virtually destroyed) the balance of power. Prior to the 17th the senators were subjects of their individual state legislatures, and could be recalled if they did not follow the whims of their legislatures. After the 17th, all power was consolidated in Washington, leading to legislative and judicial tyranny, which has led to socialism, which has placed our great civilization in danger.
SCALIA is the greatest. My only disagreement with him is that I would NOT wish to see the Constitution more easily amended. Other than that, he is the best.
Oh, and he should listen to his wife more. If you are a strict-constructionist, you should know that it is not necessary to interpret everything as free speech from a constitutional viewpoint. The courts have broadened the meaning of free speech to include various acts, and even pornography, which was not the original intent of the Bill of Rghts. The courts have also ignored some very clear provisions of the Bill of Rights, merely because they were inconvenient to their ideological predilections.
It is good to see someone like Scalia well received in Univ. of Michigan, one of the most liberal places in the land. Notice what the demonstrators were like! The were, first, sneaky. They were, as usual, rude.
They were from the "social work" area, one of the saddest groups around. If they ever finish their studies, they will get paid less than someone with a small lawn-mowing business, and the law-mowing business at least accomplishes something.
I think that it is highly unprofessional for an instructor to lead students in political activity like this, because it sets the stage for favoratism based on the degree of cooperation of his students. If this were sexual harrassment, people would be pointing out that the professor is in a power position, unfairly extorting favors from his underlings. It is the same here: the ones who help stroke the professor in his political activities will get the good grades and recommendations.
That also explains why leftism gets entrenched in many areas: conservative academics have an uphill struggle even to survive long enough to get tenured.
EEEEEEKKKK!!! Don't mess with the Constitution!
Security is so lax that backpacks are being permitted into this kind of venue? I'm sure the enemy has noted that with interest...
No it SHOULDN'T. It's like this for certain and I don't want it to change. We will turn into Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia if it is changed.
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.
Better a public debate and vote on an amendment that grants explicitly limited power than to end up with something like that steaming pile of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the New Deal Commerce Clause.
The high court re-interperted the Constitution. The Supreme Court serves to judge the constitutionality of all other law by comparing that law to the Constitution. The Constitution is the reference upon which all other law is compared and a reference is not subject to re-interpertation.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
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.