Posted on 03/15/2006 9:51:35 PM PST by NormsRevenge
BOSTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia railed against the era of the "judge-moralist," saying judges are no better qualified than "Joe Sixpack" to decide moral questions such as abortion and gay marriage.
"Anyone who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check," he said during a speech to New England School of Law students and faculty at a Law Day banquet on Wednesday night.
The 70-year-old justice said the public, through elected legislatures — not the courts — should decide watershed questions such as the legality of abortion.
Scalia decried his own court's recent overturning of a state anti-sodomy law, joking that he personally believes "sexual orgies eliminate tension and ought to be encouraged," but said a panel of judges is not inherently qualified to determine the morality of such behavior.
He pointed to the granting of voting rights to women in 1920 through a constitutional amendment as the proper way for a democracy to fundamentally change its laws.
"Judicial hegemony" has replaced the public's right to decide important moral questions, he said. Instead, he said, politics has been injected in large doses to the process of nominating and confirming federal judges.
Scalia has made similar, if less strident, comments during past public appearances.
The jurist, well-known as a strict constructionist in his interpretation of the Constitution, opened his remarks by saying, "I brought three speeches, and I decided to give the most provocative one, because this seems to be too happy a crowd."
I think there is a difference between the words 'could' and 'would.'
I don't think we would, but if 'could' means "is it possible with the current rules," then it is possible with the current rules.
We could amend the constitution to add "A chocolate sundae once a week for every citizen" if we simply ask "do the rules allow it."
Sorry, but I see discussing whether we "could" repeal the 2nd as just wordplay. As Barnett says, there is a 'presumption of liberty' in our Constitution that cannot be ignored by we the people, or by any of our officials.
Address:http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/comment-barnett071003.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scalia is wrong.
The public has no right to decide important moral questions. 'Majority rule' does not trump our Constitution's rule of law.
I look forward to your next ever-so-educational post on the subject. There, does that cover the waterfront?
Your Obedient Servant,
J. Armor, Esq.
It is not wordplay to state the limits of a particular design.
As remote as it might be, it is still what the words say. Just because no one has yet attempted to change them does not prevent someone from attempting in the future to do so.
"--- I am always grateful for your explanations to me of what the Constitution means, as written and amended to date. Every time you write, I am amazed that I had missed your point in a mere forty years of study, teaching, testifying, and practicing in the Supreme Court.
I look forward to your next ever-so-educational post on the subject. There, does that cover the waterfront? ---"
Your Obedient Servant, J. Armor, Esq.
'It' covers nothing Bob. --- I'm always amazed that you claim to have a "mere forty years of study, teaching, testifying, and practicing in the Supreme Court", yet you can't be bothered to dash off an actual counter to a mere layman's comments.
--- Much less Barnetts arguments, -- a man who actually has argued before the USSC.
I countered your arguments with Scalia's Dissent.
And I countered Scalias dissent with Barnetts argument citing Scalia.
- An argument you cannot refute.
You don't want to believe it, that's your business. But that means two things: 1) you are not a "judicial conservative,"
Silly conclusion. I'll match my conservative chops to yours, -- anyday.
and 2) you are wrong.
Sorry, but you've just made another argument with yourself as the 'authority'.
You give the surface appearance of being reasonable and being able to read with comprehension. But it's all a cover for your "layman's comments" which consist of your chronic misreading of the Constitution.
Another baseless comment. - Hardly the arguments of a man with a "mere forty years of study, teaching, testifying, and practicing in the Supreme Court".
I will exercise more restraint in the future, and not waste time posting to you. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
I posted here to you, commenting on your misconceptions about Scalia's positions. -- No one forced you to reply about flying pigs.
Sorry for annoying you. It won't happen again.
How droll. You haven't annoyed me at all. -- This little exchange has been a pleasure. -- I look forward to commenting on your next misconception.
Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution. Lawrence's reach.
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943979/posts?q=1&&page=101
Previous thread on this same controversy.
I am not the only one who thinks so.
Of course we could.
Tell me....why are folks afraid of a constitutional convention? No one wants one. Why would that possibly be?
So, it's not people who think like me about whom you should be afraid. It's people who don't realize what changes could be wrought about whom you need to be concerned.
This constitution has already seen other amendments....why not an amending of the 2nd amendment? You honestly don't think that is impossible, do you?
It is not wordplay to state the limits of a particular design.
As remote as it might be, it is still what the words say. Just because no one has yet attempted to change them does not prevent someone from attempting in the future to do so.
So you insist that we could repeal the 2nd through a flaw in the design of our Constitution.
Of course we could.
-- Lordy, -- save our Republic from those who think as you.
I am not the only one who thinks so.
I'm well aware that there even may be a majority who think like you.
Tell me....why are folks afraid of a constitutional convention? No one wants one. Why would that possibly be?
Because if enough thought like you, having one could end up in civil war.
So, it's not people who think like me about whom you should be afraid. It's people who don't realize what changes could be wrought about whom you need to be concerned. This constitution has already seen other amendments....why not an amending of the 2nd amendment?
An attempt to repeal our inalienable right to bear arms would likely mean the end of our union.
You honestly don't think that is impossible, do you?
It would never succeed, I can guarantee you that. Parts of America would never submit.
In this comment, you acknowledge that such a change would be within the rules, and that it would, therefore, have to be resisted.
That is all I've been saying.
Hear Here! I agree entirely but would quickly point out that judges are not the only ones who fail to adhere to their oaths and that the only ones with the ability to correct that deficiency is US!
If we had lawmakers and a chief executive who all upheld THEIR oaths the judges would not have nearly so much opportunity for their mischief would they? (I refer to a recent case in which our chief executive was quoted in the press as beliving parts of a proposed new law to be unconstitutional but signed it into law anyway!)
Looks like you have a new tagline. :-)
How could they? WHY would they anticipate such a thing given the context of THEIR time?
I find the following quote to be quite comprehensive in the context of OUR time.
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
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.