Now you've finally posted the quote in context. Good. What Scalia is saying is that it's up to the voters of each state to determine which inalienable rights exist under the 9th Amendment. He has an opinion on which ones do and which ones don't. As an American citizen, he's entitled to that opinion, but so are we all. He's arguing that his status as a judge doesn't empower him to impose his opinion on the people when there is no constitutional authorization for it. The 9th Amendment is a negative amendment, stopping the court from interfering if states recognize unenumerated rights, not empowering the court to order states to recognize such rights.
That defies the definition of an unalienable right. If it is in fact a right, not a privilege, then neither the voters nor the state itself has any power to deny that right. The whole concept of the Bill of Rights which includes the 9th Amendment was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, not the other way around. And Scalia has an obligation to recognize it and to protect it. That is his job. Morally, he may not like it, but he cannot simply make believe it's none of his business.
The 9th Amendment is a negative amendment, stopping the court from interfering if states recognize unenumerated rights, not empowering the court to order states to recognize such rights.
Where does it state that? I still believe you are confusing privileges with rights.
"-- I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to [such] laws. --"
I'm taking the position that Scalia is wrong to dodge his clear duty, -- to strike down a socalled 'law' that he admits is an infringement.
He took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution, not to protect States that write infringements upon individual rights.
Now you've finally posted the quote in context. Good. What Scalia is saying -
Is posted above. -- You're 'misunderstanding' him is a ploy.
- is that it's up to the voters of each state to determine which inalienable rights exist under the 9th Amendment.
Amazing 'theory' you have. The 14th makes it clear that all of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be abridged or denied by State gov'ts, or by any others.
He has an opinion on which ones do and which ones don't. As an American citizen, he's entitled to that opinion, but so are we all.
'We the people' are not entitled to ~enact~ laws that deprive others of life, liberty or property without due process. -- Scalia is hired to decide when such infringements on due process take place.
He's arguing that his status as a judge doesn't empower him to impose his opinion on the people when there is no constitutional authorization for it.
Lame argument, as the USSC has no power to enforce or 'impose' his decisions. The other two branches have that power.
The 9th Amendment is a negative amendment, stopping the court from interfering if states recognize unenumerated rights, not empowering the court to order states to recognize such rights.
"If" states recognize rights? -- Read Article VI. -- States & all their officials are bound to support the Constitution [and the rights therein] as our supreme Law of the Land.
Get it yet?