Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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."
From what I've been told, Scalia needs to go and read the Federalist papers.
Judges should be able to rule any way they want too....
If that was indeed a joke, it was in very poor taste on Scalia's part.
I found it just grand, and not in poor taste. I must have sans culotte tendencies or something. Maybe I just don't take some things too seriously. I guess it might be a character flaw, among many that I have. Best.
J Scalia is a student/follower of original meaning, not original intent.
I take it that your definition of conservative is in idiology not constitutionality. Scalia's interpretation is to rule by what is written not what he thinks should be written.
Perhaps election by lottery would solve the problem. (Only half joking.)
Lawyers run for office, other people don't. It's really that simple. I'm not going to bother speculating why.
Well, this certainly explains his decisions on marijuana legalization and euthanasia in Gonzales v. Reich and Gonzales v. Oregon. He simply wasn't moralizing at all in EITHER of those cases, now, was he? It must have all simply been about what the law said, not what exceptions he preferred be sliced out of his otherwise Consitutionalist philosophy.
/biting sarcasm
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Ha. Imagine a layman sitting there. Incomprehensible [to a layman] gobbledygook is flying thick and fast, so what is one to do? To keep one's mouth shut, to nod wisely, and always agree with somebody else who [hopefully] knows what's going on? And one would have to place absolute trust in one's staffers and clerks that they do not [which will be very easy for them] turn such a layman justice into a laughingstock and butt of jokes. An extremely undignified situation, IMHO.
VINDICATED At Last !!!!!! :-)
Electing lawyers to legislative bodies to make laws isn't the biggest problem. It's electing lawyers to judicial bodies where they inappropriately make laws that's the problem. Repeal judicial immunity now and hold judges accountable for their treasonous behavior!
Most laymen have never even read the constitution. I suggest this as a test for the "appoint laymen" crowd: next time your car breaks down take it to someone with no mechanical training who has never read the manual. See if you like those results.
Orgies relieve tension??? What's up with that comment?
/biting sarcasm
You flatter yourself. Next time, wear your teeth.
It would be nice if our legislatures had a good understanding of law, because a badly written law gets implemented just like a well written law.
What we need to put in office are honest lawyers.
I'll get back to you if I ever find any.
ping
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.