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?"
Scalia is absolutely correct on this. This is a made up right by Harry Blackmun who conned his fellow justices - including Brennan - to go alont with him. I suspect that Brennan may not have realized how much devastation Roe would cause. Blackmun, however, is a major villain in this.
Well what Roe v. Wade said was that there was a Constitutional right to privacy, and that anti-abortion laws violated that. But Justice Scalia is still right. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly guarantee your right to privacy and he has stated several times that he does not believe the right exists. Under that interpretation medical records, doctor's conversations, what have you are not protected. But the court has ruled in several cases that there is an implied right to privacy from an interpretation of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments. Roe v. Wade took this interpretation to a whole new level.
Read it again. Even though the Supreme Court has misinterpreted our Constitution to discover some non-existent ‘right to privacy’, such a right is NOT mentioned in our Constitution. Nor, may I add, is anything approaching ‘separation of church and state’.
And they did not even claim to find that in the Constitution itself but in it's penumbra (shadow or partially illuminated place)!
So now not only are they ruling on what the Constitution itself says but what (they suppose) it's shadows say as well!
You asked someone else, but my answer is ‘yes’. Under no circumstance will I vote for pro-abortion, pro-gun-control Rudy.
Which has been the way of things since McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.
We have occasionally argued here in the past but not on this point.
I agree completely!
Then why isn't prostitution a constitutional right?
I'm not making the argument for a right of privacy. Only pointing out that some have argued it exists because of the fourth amendment.
My point is that if there was indeed a right of privacy for a woman to do whatever she wants with her body, then I have an absolute right to use whatever drug I wish in mine. A right of privacy is a right of privacy and should not be limited just to abortion.
Nor is it a Christian nation, a Buddhist nation, or a Jewish nation. The governing structure of our constitutional republic is and must be secular in order for religion to be free of government interference, as the Framers intendend. Therefore, appeals to the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism OR Islam as the strongest arguments for overturning civil law should have little sway. There are much stronger civil and legal arguments against abortion as a “Constitutional right” than the religious argument.
Fair enough - I think we are pretty much on the same page.
Doesn’t Antonin Scalia know the Constitution is a living, breathing Document?
The biggest flaw in the theory that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document is that this condition would also mean that it could die.
yup they would love to kill it and fashion a new one that encompasses their vulgarity and immoral ways.
I don't believe that the SCOTUS has ruled on prostitution. If a case regarding prostitution and the "right to privacy" reached the SCOTUS, it would be interesting to see how the Nine High Priests of Justice would treat prostitution within the framework of Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
The two cases mean effectively that States may allow, if they wish, abortion up until the end of the ninth month of pregnancy, till the due date. There are many abortionists who specialize in late 3rd trimester abortions. Goggle George Tiller of Wichita
I would wager that well over 99% of the electorate never read Roe V. Wade. I encourage everyone to do so. It is long, horribly written, confusing, illogical and a shining example of radical leftism.
The Constitution confers no rights whatsoever. It only outlines and delineates the powers of the government.
To quote another great document that preceded the Constitution...
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
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.