Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia Rails Against the 'Judge-Moralist'
AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/15/06 | AP

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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: against; judge; moralist; rails; scalia; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last
To: NormsRevenge


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....


21 posted on 03/15/2006 10:30:25 PM PST by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie

If that was indeed a joke, it was in very poor taste on Scalia's part.


22 posted on 03/15/2006 10:32:55 PM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balch3

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.


23 posted on 03/15/2006 10:36:34 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

J Scalia is a student/follower of original meaning, not original intent.


24 posted on 03/15/2006 10:36:43 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Yeah, a conservative with a sense of humor. They do exist!

(Also, people should keep in mind that this was an audience in their early to mid-20s.)
25 posted on 03/15/2006 10:39:09 PM PST by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
I believe that we owe all of this to Marbury v Madison.

There's no doubt in my mind that the invention of judicial review paved the way to the judicial arrogance we see today.
26 posted on 03/15/2006 10:41:48 PM PST by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: patton
Um, he invented the "drug exception to the fourth amendment." Doesn't sound very conservative to me.

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.

27 posted on 03/15/2006 10:42:53 PM PST by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Worthless Miracle

Perhaps election by lottery would solve the problem. (Only half joking.)


28 posted on 03/15/2006 10:54:23 PM PST by DryFly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Worthless Miracle

Lawyers run for office, other people don't. It's really that simple. I'm not going to bother speculating why.


29 posted on 03/15/2006 11:03:23 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: patton; freepatriot32
"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."

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

30 posted on 03/15/2006 11:20:35 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
31 posted on 03/15/2006 11:49:46 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PISANO

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.


32 posted on 03/16/2006 12:10:29 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg; Joe 6-pack

VINDICATED At Last !!!!!! :-)


33 posted on 03/16/2006 12:13:39 AM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
ha-HAA!

34 posted on 03/16/2006 12:18:01 AM PST by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Worthless Miracle

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!


35 posted on 03/16/2006 12:18:10 AM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Democrats lie and US troops die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: no one in particular

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.


36 posted on 03/16/2006 12:20:46 AM PST by phelanw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Orgies relieve tension??? What's up with that comment?


37 posted on 03/16/2006 12:25:55 AM PST by sully777 (wWBBD: What would Brian Boitano do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
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

You flatter yourself. Next time, wear your teeth.

38 posted on 03/16/2006 12:29:55 AM PST by Chunga (Mock The Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Torie; The Worthless Miracle

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.


39 posted on 03/16/2006 12:33:51 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

ping


40 posted on 03/16/2006 12:41:43 AM PST by SR 50 (Larry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson