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?"
They will sure have a hard time explaining that to God....
Jeremiah 1:5
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
I hope he doesn't apply that reasoning to Parker v D.C., the Second Amendment case the Court will hear.
No, Scalia is very clear on the fact that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says.
The difference between Scalia and his detractors is not over the concepts of either “judicial independence” or “judicial review”.
But, unlike some others on the SCOTUS, Scalia would tell you that in his jurisprudence he acknowledges that he does not have the right to AMEND the Constitution to make it say what he wants it to say simply because he thinks he (or the South African supreme court) can say it better than it is said in the Constitution.
We do not have “freedom of speech”, a woman’s right to vote or the end of slavery acknowledged in the Constitution on the basis that some Supreme Court Judges decided they belong there - even though we may all think those are good things. They entered the Constitution when we the people placed those things there in amendments.
When judges think they can write new “rights” into the Constitution - because they think it is a better idea - then by the same abrogation of a right that belongs only to us - to amend the Constitution - they obtain the power to throw out our rights that HAVE been written there - and they do (campaign finance reform, eminent domain, etc.)
Scalia understands this.
A SCOTUS that actually believes in the independence of the judiciary would know that its primary client is not the latest “popular” “rights” agenda, but the Constitution, preserving the application of it as it has been produced, buy the people. A politically “independent” judiciary would have told Congress - on the Campaign Finance Reform issue - that if they wanted to abrogate the First Amendment, to exclude political speech, they’d have to get the Constitution amended. Instead, many on the court treat it as another political body, as an unelected super-legislature, re-writing the Constitution from the bench, one ruling at a time.
And Scalia is the type of person Rudi will nominate to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court! I hope Dr. Dobson finally understands what Rudi means when he uses Scalia as a role model, unless he wants a pro-abortion justice appointed by Hildabeast.
Someone in Washington actually has Constitutionally focused common sense???
I think I'm in love politically! : - )
He would shun and show disdain for a strict constructionist if his political career depended upon it however.
LMAO!!!
The ONLY thing that Justice Scalia and Rooty Toots have, or ever will have, in common is that they are both Italian Americans. Rooty is no more likely to appoint a strict constructionist than Hillary is. Thankfully, neither of them will ever get the chance.
BTTT
Rooty has spent his entire career shunning and showing disdain for everyone who believes in the strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Rooty's a Democrat in RINO's clothing.
Amen brother.
We love ya!
You and he are both liars.
Originalist os Constructionist? I know Rooty said “Constructionalist. Originalist would be my choice.
Mine too.
Except when he's in drag!
I believe it immediately follows the part that states that there is a “wall” between church and state;)
“Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers...
WHO ARE UNELECTED AND WHO HAVE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS AND THUS NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT SERVING THE PEOPLE...
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.