8mm
Posted on 10/17/2007 3:25:32 PM PDT by wagglebee
Philadelphia, PA (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia attended Catholic celebratory events on Monday and gave a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture. He reconfirmed his belief that the so-called right to abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution.
He said that notion is not guided by his Catholic views but by his understanding of the Constitution and his perspective as a "strict originalist" and "legal positivist."
"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn't say it doesn't say."
"I don't agree we are in an era of narrow constitutional interpretation. There are still sweeping decisions out there," Scalia added.
"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.
Scalia said that he also supports the notion that state legislatures should be allowed to make laws because they are closer to the people. That state's rights argument has long been extended towards overturning Roe v. Wade.
"To the extent you believe judges have the right to change law then you are in the soup," he argued, according to The Bulletin.
"Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?"
Well said. Just because something is antithetical to one’s religion does not mean that it should be unconstitutional. If we attempt to use religious arguments as the strongest prop for banning abortion, we have no right to complain when Muslim citizens use their religion to make arguments against women owning land or driving.
-
yes we do because this is not a muslim country
Spell? The man was an obvious charlatan. Bill Clinton was a not so obvious charlatan. I have more forgiveness for those who were fooled in 1992 by Bill than for those who bought Perot's crazy aunt in the cellar.
Life is a perfect example. You could kill your wife tonight in your living room, and it's not a federal crime, and the fed has no business in it whatsoever. Now the state of Texas will likely kill you, but that's up to the state of Texas, not the fed.
Likewise, the constitution properly read places abortion under the jurisdiction of the state in which it occurs. Laws will differ, but that's federalism.
It's dark here in Texas, so I can legally shoot someone in my back yard. In New York, that's murder, and I could face a life sentence. Murder not being a federal issue means 50 states with 50 sets of laws.
If you don't like it, then amend the constitution.
Huh? The 2nd Amendent doesn't have anything to with God, Jesus, or high school speeches.
Well he did have pie charts. Seriously, Perot appealed to uneducated voters who were for one reason or another seriously disastisfied with the status quo. They just didn't have the good sense to realize they were helping the Democrats.
I don't know about you, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if he had said, "I would propose an amendment..." A minor squabble for sure, but I'd prefer some recognition that the states ultimately amend the constitution, not presidents.
The ones I spoke with were not politically active, and they were definitely pocket book voters, which is really how I should have worded it.
You’re forgetting, Hunter is not president yet.
He introduces this bill year after year as a congressman.
It is the personhood-at-conception bill that has over 100 co-sponsors, which would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.
Also, I’m not impressed with states’ rights when it comes to abortion. My own NYS had legal abortion BEFORE Roe.
Abortion is unconstitutional if any state:
Amendment V
“..nor be
deprived of LIFE (emphasis mine), liberty, ..”
No, see my previous comment on murder. Murder is NOT within the fed’s jurisdiction. It’s solely up to the state to define what constitutes murder and what punishment is appropriate. That’s why you have 50 states with (sometimes) wildly differing laws concerning the taking of human life.
It's OK, the baby killing left wing Socialists have a plan to replace the millions of American taxpaying citizens who should be here today to fund SS and Medicare entitlement programs for retirees....open the border and let every third world illegal come in to pay taxes under a fake SS #. It's all under control... NOT.
Where are we going? Who's this red guy with horns? Why am I in a basket?
How could there possibly be a right to kill an innocent person? Ever?
This part of the Roe v. Wade decision has been completely ignored and buried over the years."
Maybe because the Supreme Court realized it activated the 2nd Amendment as applying to the individual concerning the right to keep and bear arms for self defense as well and didn't want to publicize it.
However, Roe v Wade set the bar at the point in time the fetus can surviveoutside the womb, even with mechanical assistance, the fetus is protected. Why doesn't some group of doctors/lawyers get together and define in terms of weeks, just when that is? I'm sure there is data out there where women give birth prematurely, the age of the fetus, and the survival data. Remember, when a woman gives birth to a premie, and wants that baby like most parents love their kids, the medical professions moves mountains to get that baby to survive.
The same can be said about the income tax.
Actually it's what WE allow the sons of bitches to get away with. We let them get away with taking away our rights.
It's a pathetic shame.
21 weeks - zero
22 weeks- 2%
23 weeks - 10-40%
24 weeks - 40-70%
25 weeks - 50-80%
26 weeks - 90%
How does this help address the issue? Survival is increasing across this time frame 3-4% PER DAY - and the dates are only accurate +/- a week.
bump
Not only does Rudy see the right to an abortion in there. He sees it so clearly that he thinks we should pay for abortions for those who need them.
Rudy sees a Super-Right. Maybe even a Super-Dooper Right to Abortion.
I don't see the Fed paying for me to set up a printing press or start a new church. So this right to an abortion that Rudy sees...Man, it must be really obvious, up-front, in-your-face. Not like those obscure rights like speech, religion, press, assembly, petition, etc. that are hidden in the First Amendment. /sarc
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.