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."
The suggestion is NOT to pick a random layperson off the street. (Is it fair to say that only a lawyer or lawyer's running dog would say that it was?)
Two or three la people are almost as smart as lawyers and some of them have read not only the contstitution but a real, live - brace yourself - LAW BOOK! No, I know it's shocking, but you can handle it.
So if you can distract yourself from constructing straw men, I mean persons, for a minute, you might attempt to deal reasonably with a reasonable proposal, okay counsellor?
Q: Why do they bury lawyers 12 feet deep?
A: Because deep down they're not so bad.
Well, neither judges nor the people have the ability to make the immoral moral. On a practical level, Scalia is probably right. But it will be very difficult to overturn Roe v. Wade by constitutional amendment.
5.56mm
Awesome!
That is why I used the word PRACTICALITY!
Also my mention of Marbury v Madison [i.e. enshrining Judicial Review making is necessary for HIGHLY educated elite Lawyers] started the path towards rule by Judicial fiat rather than the PEOPLE [all the people] including average non lawyers like me.
"I used to resent jokes like that. Now I see them as simple truths."
-- Danny DeVito as divorce lawyer Gavin D'Amato in War of the Roses
I wonder.
If women did not have the right to vote today, and such a case were brought in front of Scalia's court, I wonder if they would refuse saying that it was not up to the court to decide.
Ba-loney!
They'd trip over their robes and each other to vote 9-1 to declare such a law unconstitutional as violating due process and equal protection. Come ... on.
9-0. You know what I meant.
I found it funny. It shows that one can be a conservative Constitutionalist and still have a sense of humor!
Lighten up!
Geez...you must be a blast to hang out with.
I thought it was pretty funny, especially coming from a SCJ.
I do like him, but I liked it better when ALL the justices did not say a peep. The problem with Scalia speaking is that this will open the door for all of them to speak their minds. Their votes are enough for me IMHO. I can just see Suder or Ginsburg will begin speaking and that gives me tremors...LOL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since when has 'majority rule' trumped our Constitution's rule of law, and given the public a "right to decide important moral questions"?
We decided with the ratification of our "Law of the Land" that our individual rights to life, liberty, or property, under due process of law, were not to be infringed by majority rule.
-- We decided to be governed by a "Republican Form of Government", not by a democratic form of moral majority rule.
Do you know how to read?
Where did Scalia state that "majority rules"?
Our elected representatives 'rule'. If you believe in Judicial supremancy, just say so.
You jarred a memory cell loose. What show is that picture from? I used to watch that show when they critiqued bad movies. I really enjoyed it.
Thanks.
Frankly neither judges, nor legislature decides my morality for me... I don't give a darn what the so-called powers that be decide.. my boss is God and He decides what is right and wrong and He is the only law I listen to!
That's why we should never give up our Second Amendment. /sarc
Maybe more relevantly, when the legislatures pass a law and a person is found guilty under it, should the deputies take him to jail if, in their opinion, God says the law is unjust? Or the law is just but the verdict and/or sentence isn't/aren't, what wshould the deputies do?
If the judge thinks God is against minimum mandatory jail time for DUI -- 3rd offense, but the legislature has passsed a law requiring such, should the judge rule against the evidence when the evidence shows the offense to have been committed, or should he pass the sentence as required by law, or should he resign from the bench?
I don't mean to be tendentious. However I think Usama Bin Loaded would pretty much say what you have said. Should we just let the two of you duke it out, or what?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since when has 'majority rule' trumped our Constitution's rule of law, and given the public a "right to decide important moral questions"?
We decided with the ratification of our "Law of the Land" that our individual rights to life, liberty, or property, under due process of law, were not to be infringed by majority rule.
-- We decided to be governed by a "Republican Form of Government", not by a democratic form of moral majority rule.
Do you know how to read? Where did Scalia state that "majority rules"?
He said the public has a "right to decide important moral questions".
Read much yourself?
Our elected representatives 'rule'.
No, they don't. -- Our Constitution 'rules', as our supreme law.
If you believe in Judicial supremancy, just say so.
I don't. -- I also don't believe in legislative supremacy, as you do.
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.