U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addresses the audience at the New England School of Law Banquet and Barrister's Ball in Boston, Wednesday, March 15, 2006. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
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."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addresses the audience at the New England School of Law Banquet and Barrister's Ball in Boston, Wednesday, March 15, 2006. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
The more we keep electing lawyers to make our laws, the more we get what we deserve. Never, and I mean NEVER, put a lawyer in political office!
That about sums it up.
WHO KNEW?!?!
The voters don't agree with you. I suspect a majority of Congress persons are lawyers, or close to it. The fact of the matter is that lawyers are just more persuasive, as a general rule. Deal with it. Cheers.
"sexual orgies eliminate tension and ought to be encouraged,"
--
this might explain Ruth Buzzy Ginzburg dozing off on the bench.
Bump
It's a shame HE can't be president. :P
And to think we almost lost J Scalia to retirement several years ago. Wish he was ten years younger. Caught him at a Q&A session on CSPAN recently. Tough guy, with a great conservative mind.
I had no idea he's 70.
Scary.
Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
On top of that, Scalia understands the need to persuade the public of his views.
You must not be a lawyer, because I still see no reason to ever vote for a lawyer. It's a systemic problem - we could change things by electing normal people, not those who, as Neal Boortz says, turn a personality disorder into a career.
:)
Not even the hedonistic morality of nihilistic perversion. No. Honest. I'm not making it up.
They KNEW what they were doing. Too bad it is NOW MANDATORY [by practicality] that not only does one have to be a LAWYER like Harriet Miers BUT has to be a friggin genius like Roberts, who can cite every case from memory, in order to get on the bench.
I believe that we owe all of this to Marbury v Madison.
You do realize that there is a high correlation between a personality disorder and a compelling lean and hungry ambition to assume power don't you? Thank heavens it is not a perfect correlation, but it is a correlation nonetheless.
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.