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 public "rules" through our elected representatives.
The public "rules" through our elected representatives.
Please, try to justify your theory by quoting our Constitution.
You will find that everyone in the USA is bound to support our supreme "Law of the Land"; -- which specifies that none of our rights to life, liberty, or property can be infringed in the due process of making law.
Mystery Science Theater 3000
"Prince of Space"
I was responding to the main question of: Who should decide such weighty issues for the American public? I was merely stating that the only one who decides such things for me is God. No one said anything about which side of the street to drive on or other trivial matters. And do not compare me to a terrorist.. my God is a God of Love. If you wish to argue that, go do it with someone else.
If you think Scalia was serious when he made that remark, you need to "loosen up, Sandy baby..."
I suppose this kind of goes to our Dred Scott discussion. I have no doubt that Scallia would have been a decenter in that case and ripped Taney to bits for his logic, or lack thereof.
Thanks.
Scalia says one thing in a speech and rules the opposite on the bench. As Justice Thomas pointed out the majority of the court was wrong on Reich and Gonzales.
They have almost all of the seasons on Ebay on DVD. I have seasons 2, 3, and seven.
LOVE that show.
It's really NOT a no-brainer. For example, you may think it trivial what side of the road one drives one, but it is of literally deadly importance that we agree about it -- one way or the other, and your not heeding the man-made (as it seems) law on that matter could cost someone life or limb.
I didn't compare you to a terrorist. I said Usama bin Laden would, I think, write something very like what you wrote about God being the only source of Law worth heeding. [Strictly speaking, I compared what you said to what Usama and his kind actually have said.] For him this means that if the people of Iraq decide to have a representative government, freedom of religion, and all those things which we consider the God of Love to have endowed us with, Usama would say that God's law told him he could practice any manner of violence in an effort to overturn that decision.
In other words, for us who consider the God of Love to be the only and ultimate legislator there is a problem of how we participate in a republic where lots of others, often the majority, disagree with us.
Is it legitimate to bomb abortion clinics or to otherwise kill those who work there, to blockade them, to harass those who work there and those who receive their alleged services? Can a Christian judge legitimately send to jail someone who violated legitimately made law about, say, trespass, when the trespass was done by a pro-life activist in such a way that it stopped or postponed an abortion?
Scalia is precisely right. Most questions are settled once the people or the people's elected officials have their chance to debate and vote.
They had their issue, they had a fair fight, they lost, and that's that.
The judicial oligarchy short-circuited that process by fiat on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. No wonder these are hot-button issues.
Two different subjects. The Constitution enumerates our rights, and restricts the federal govt.
If we don't "rule" through our elected representatives, please explain to me just who the ef is in charge? Your buddies, the federal judges?
PING!
THAT is a pinch on the inside of retired Justice O'Conner's thigh. Delivered with roses and a straight flush. I don't think these people ate together much:):):)
It's not. A constitutional amendment must be passed by individual States and ratified by Congress as an Amendment. They go along and the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader of the Senate (forget which) presents this to the President for signature. With language that will be self-explained for many years into the future. It becomes U.S. law at that exact time which the Supreme Court must follow from that point on.
They had their issue, they had a fair fight, they lost, and that's that.
The judicial oligarchy short-circuited that process by fiat on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. No wonder these are hot-button issues.
Respectfully, Scalia is exactly wrong. There are some rights enshrined in the Constitution that are beyond the reach of the majoritarian process. Any laws that infringe upon these rights are a nullity, and cannot be enforced, even if those laws were passed by a resounding majority. "You lost the vote, so too bad" is entirely inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. A majority of Americans would support a lot of things all of us would find reprehensible, and would offend the Constitution.
Now, on the question of whether abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage are of this type of right is a completely different issue. The first issue is
A ------> B, that is,
fundamental right ------> beyond reach of majoritarian process.
A-----> B is unassailable.
The only way to defeat it is to show ~A, i.e., that the issue in question is not a "fundamental right." That is where abortion, and gay marriage fail (though the Colorado anti-gay statute, which singled gays out, was a violation of Equal Protection because Equal Protection is a fundamental right).
Using that logic a law singling out bestiality or incest would be a violation of equal protection.
Sexual preference is not a protected status and should not be.
No, but a statute that throws open discrimination against legal behavior between consenting adults is a gross violation of Equal Protection.
Bestiality and incest is not even close to being on the same plane as homosexuality, legally or morally.
The public "rules" through our elected representatives.
Please, try to justify your theory by quoting our Constitution.
You will find that everyone in the USA is bound to support our supreme "Law of the Land"; -- which specifies that none of our rights to life, liberty, or property can be infringed in the due process of making law.
Two different subjects.
Nonsense. - You claim the public "rules" through our elected representatives. -- Such public 'rule' is restricted by our Constitution.
The Constitution enumerates our rights, and restricts the federal govt.
It also restricts the States, and the people of those states, -- from infringing on those enumerated [& unenumerated] rights.
If we don't "rule" through our elected representatives, please explain to me just who the ef is in charge? Your buddies, the federal judges?
Fed judges are not 'my buddies', -- any more than elected representatives are your buddies.
"We the people" are all in charge, all the time, - of protecting our individual rights. -- 'We' are not in charge of restricting rights. No one has that power in a free republic.
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.