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?"
Great point!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If there’s a right to abortion in the constitution, then when was it ratified? Is there a record of the two-thirds roll call vote in both houses of Congress, and a list of the three-fourths of the states that ratified it?
Certainly a great human hero.
No kidding it’s not in there. The Constitution is not that long and complicated that one can’t read it.
For issues not mentioned in the Constitution, the states have the power to decide. How complicated is that? All these issues should go to the states (abortion, gay rights, etc)
I got slammed for saying this on here back in August. Finally, someone in government said it.
Great remarks by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia!!
Hmmm.... seeing as how Rudy Giuliani actually supports a woman’s right to abortion as a constitutional right, I wonder how sincere is his pledge to appoint “strict constructionist” judges like Scalia?
It’s the other way around. Article 5 says:
No person ...shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
We have deprived tens of millions of human lives in the past 30+ years
How can you exercise your right to life, liberty, and pursue happiness if you’ve been aborted? What Justice Scalia said needed to be said, very unfortunately.
Great point!
Democracy (legislature) vs. aristocracy (judges, law lords) — take your pick.
One might argue that your right of privacy in your papers and property extended to a womans body. Ok. So then my right of privacy also should extend to the substances I put into my body, which means that all drug laws should be null and void.
Yeah. When pigs fly.
Here is a sample of what IMO is critical reading:
No present or past Justice has ever taken the position that the unborn child is, or should be regarded as, a “person” as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the late Justice White, perhaps the most eloquent critic of Roe v. Wade.
Pro-life kudos to J. Scalia!
Of course Dems and their fellow travelers will argue the definition of “person” just like the previous WH occupant argued the definition of sex.
Dems did the same with slaves back in the 1800s...
Rooty Toot wouldn’t recognize a strict constructionist if his life depended on it. He would appoint judges who “strictly” define the Constitution as “living and breathing” and probably outdated. The best we would get under him is someone along the lines of Sandra Day O’Connor, but more likely we would get another Souter.
Abortionists are denying life to 3500 Americans EVERY DAY.
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.