Posted on 10/15/2006 6:55:12 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday defended some of his Supreme Court opinions, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights and the use of race in school admissions.
Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues.
Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, "Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach."
"On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment," the Reagan appointee said.
"Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution," he said.
Scalia's comments come as the Supreme Court this term will hear closely divided issues involving partial-birth abortion and school integration. They are expected to test the conservative impact of the court's two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Scalia, 70, has consistently voted to limit the use of race in school admissions and has called for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion to be overruled. But his influence was often limited by moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast deciding votes on those issues against him.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Please show a link or citation supporting this. Thanks
Abortion has been around a LONG time. I'm sure they knew what it was, but they didn't institute a constititional right to it, a 'right' that didn't exist until invented nearly 200 years later.
Cite, please.
Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue.
Well then it's even less likely that there's anything in there that says it's ok to use race in college admissions but only for another 25 years (i.e. the U of Michigan affirmative action case.)
Ever since that ruling, whenever someone mentions Sandra Day O'Connor I think of that flaky opinion of hers. I just can't believe a Supreme Court justice could write that.
That paragraph bugged me too. O'Connor was a "moderate", therefore Scalia is some kind of wacko extremist.
I had a book of Jefferson's letters, and other writings. Either trust me or don't. I don't care.
It does talk about raising an Army, so it could be said that all branches necessary for are protection are in the Constitution.
I always ask them to find where the right to privacy is. This one makes their heads explode.
The institution of the Air Force during WWII did not pose any particular constitutional problem, but its maintenance in peacetime, IMHO, does. Obviously a constitutional amendment to make the authorization clear would have passed readily after WWII (not so sure about today) but I doubt the Air Force really abides by the two-year appropriations limits, and I don't think it can really be seen as part of the Navy.
BUMP
We need to hear from Scalia on how the 14th Amendment bars "anchor babies"...
for are protection = for our protection
The Air Force is the product of appropriate Legislation ably brought to fruition via the Executive branch. Your apples vie with your oranges.
Occasionally, IMHO, Scalia sometimes missteps as on the Raich case. Thomas does too, though not usually as often.
One thing I wish the Supreme Court could be to issue an initial decision against one party with instructions for that party to present a certain argument on appeal. There are very good reasons why the Court cannot consider arguments not placed before it, but sometimes bad precedents can get set when the proper decision cannot be supported by the presented arguments and rather than using the right arguments the court stretches those that were presented. Lawrence v. Texas was a prime example of this.
I would argue that there should be a general legal principle that if it is widely known that the police are aware of a particular activity and do not act upon it, it should not be possible to prosecute someone for that same activity unless it can be shown that there was some legitimate rational basis for prosecuting the defendant but not the others doing the same thing, and that the defendant was or should have been aware that his action was different.
IMHO, the proper outcome for Lawrence would have been for the case to have been remanded to trial court, with instruction to determine whether there was basis for charging the defendants while not charging other people engaged in sodomy whom the police knew about but left alone.
Unfortunately, the defendants refused to make any such argument, putting the court in the position of either finding against defendants for whom, at least in the public's eye, such an argument might have worked, or else finding for the defendants without any real constitutional basis for doing so, and then stretching things to pretend the decision is legitimate.
that doesn't mean there can't be an air force - that simply means the other two branches can construct a lawful one and implement it without it being unconstitutional.
abortion is not in the constitution - which means the other branches can regulate it - banning it, or legalizing it.
Roe vs Wade was a revolutionary change by a body that does not have revolutionary authority.
I want to trust you but you're not giving me a chance to with your "either trust me or don't" attitude.
Jeez, if you don't have a link or whatever you could at least expand on the idea or another quote from Jefferson before becoming so defensive.
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.