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?"
As you say, it’s quite clear both from his early record and his recent comments that what Giuliani means by “strict construction” is very different from what it normally means.
Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Moreover, he added that they have a consitutional right to have the government pay for their abortion.
Pro-abortionists often play these word games, taking plain language and distorting it for their own purposes. “Reproductive health” and “choice” are two examples. It’s obvious that Rudy has no intention of appointing strict constructionists in the normal sense of the language.
Rudy has stated that he believes a woman’s right to choose abortion is a constitutional right and that a strict constructionist judge would see it that way too. So much for his “strict constructionist” judges.
“Justice Antonin Scalia Reconfirms: No Right to Abortion in Constitution”
Now given that Trudy believes that murdering your unborn child IS a Constitutional right, how can ANYONE believe him when he says that he would nominate judges (ala Scalia) that are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO HIM ON THE MOST IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUE OF THE LAST 4 DECADES?????
They can make law and if they do so they should say so and not stretch the language because that leads to meaning inflation which the country has the most major case of in history. The words of the English language are close to meaning nothing anymore.
Beat me to it. That was my first thought as well.
Go, Tony, go!
I love Scalia!!!
I believed GHWB a hell of a lot more than I will ever believe Rooty Toot and look where “Read my lips: no new taxes” got us.
And given the choice between taxes and 3500 murdered children a day, I would pay the taxes.
“And Scalia is the type of person Rudi will nominate to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court!”
And the moon is made of cheese.
And Michael Moore is a paragon of truth telling.
And RABID MONKEYS WILL FLY OUT OF MY BACKSIDE!
You are delusional.
Say that again!
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!
Say That Again!
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!
Say That Again!
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!
“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?”
The man has a genius for stating the simple facts.
A most perfect description of a Democrat trying to be a RINO for personal political gain!
That is interesting. I haven't actually heard any of the candidates speak lately, but I get the impression none of them are clear about this. I never saw anything in the Constitution about abortion or the right to privacy except by implication, but it always seemed quite a stretch to a right to privacy to cover abortion when we are constantly checked for this and that the whole time we are in public school and under Hillary!08 we will have to be examined every year whether we're sick or not--not much privacy when the public sector is keeping the database.
Rooty believes in Rooty and his own ability, in his mind such as it is, to say what the voter wants to hear. I still think he should persue his dream of being a Rockette.
Scalia's position is NOT a moral absolute. Scalia's position is simple reality testing. It's like saying "water is wet", or in the famous Randian construction, "A=A".
OF COURSE there is no "right" to abortion in the US Constitution.
From my relative libertarian perspective, the seizure of the power to proclaim such a right, unanchored to either the history or the text, was as bad as a coup d'etat, and it MUST be reversed.
You, wagglebee, and others, would do well to focus on the Constitutional issue because the "baby-killer" epithet is your weakest argument and the one least likely to yield progress against abortion.
I don't think there will ever be a political majority to ban anti-implantation drugs, and there will probably never be a political majority to ban first-trimester abortions.
But most people are queasy about the status quo, and will give you significant improvements in the laws, but only AFTER you get Roe v. Wade reversed.
In order to do this, you need to bring along those who agree on the Constitutional issue and who don't (necessarily) agree on the life issue.
That, I think, is Scalia's point.
Didn't Yogi Berra first say that about the Constitution?
Unless you're a Lib that is....
Yes, and the fourteenth amendment ordered the states to abide by those protections, too.
No federal, state, or local government may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law!
That means every person has a constitutional right to have their case heard in court.
Enter Blackmun in Roe v. Wade:
The court will ignore “the well-known facts of fetal development.”
To do otherwise makes them persons entitled to protection under the fourteenth amendment.
Anybody with an open mind should read the nonsense explanation that condemned all the babies to death.
Good place to bump this thread.
What we need is more of these judges, “strict originalist” and “legal positivist.”
“For issues not mentioned in the Constitution, the states have the power to decide.”
Life is mentioned in the constitution.
Amendments Five and Fourteen.
No government rep. has the authority to sentence a child killer without due process.
How is it people think we need to defer to state consensus on whether or not it’s okay to sentence innocent preborn human beings to death without their due process?
To maintain his position of judicial impartiality, supreme court justices must speak in legal rather than moral terms about issues they expect to eventually rule on. This DOES NOT mean that they don't have a moral position on it. And Scalia evidenced this in his dissent in "Stenberg v. Carhart":
The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, 'to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,' prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd.
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.