Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Antonin Scalia Reconfirms: No Right to Abortion in Constitution
Life News ^ | 10/17/07 | Steven Ertelt

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?"


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; antoninscalia; moralabsolutes; prolife; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-152 next last
To: All
Just my two cents, but I believe the sound judgment on abortion must be fought in the secular, not the religious. By inflicting religion, those opposed to abortion on religious grounds alone do make opponents of people that are opposed to religion having a role in government.

If opposition to abortion is presented on a secular level, there stands a better chance of support for opposition to abortion to win the day as it will bring together both those of a religious point of view and persons in opposition to religion. Such a presentation exists.

The purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America was to establish a form of government that could best assure the unalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. First and foremost among these rights is Life.

Science, the often-defined “religion” of the nonreligious, defines life as the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects. Using this secular definition, an embryo at any stage of development has life.

Further, the Preamble of the constitution states the purpose to be, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Our posterity is future generations. This being a purpose of the constitution it is therefore unconstitutional to abort the life of a member of posterity.

The debate over abortion must expend into secular thought if abortion is to be banned.

61 posted on 10/17/2007 5:09:32 PM PDT by backtothestreets (My bologna has a first name, it's J-O-R-G-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fetal heart beats by 21st day
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?

Because people want to have sex with who they want, when they want, and they prefer not to deal with the consequences.

62 posted on 10/17/2007 5:12:44 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of troubles, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; fetal heart beats by 21st day
Because people want to have sex with who they want, when they want, and they prefer not to deal with the consequences.

Well the reality is that everything we do has consequences and we don't need to kill others because they aren't the consequences we would have preferred.

63 posted on 10/17/2007 5:15:27 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tet68
re: # 49

There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!

Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to privacy, either.

64 posted on 10/17/2007 5:17:35 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20 (Progressives = Liberals = Reactionaries = Regressives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Where is the Constitutional right for the feds to enact a CHIPS or SCHIPS program.

Where in the Constitution did the people or the state cede their right to the federal legislative/administrative/judicial axis to rule on homosexual rights, or redefine marriage, or determine what is taught in our schools, or the requirement to teach evolution, or to tell a teacher they cannot bow their head at a football game, or any of another thousand rights the federal government has taken from the state and the people. What is heavens name happened to the 10th amendment. What does the Constittution say anywhere about abortion, or cloning, or any other issues than what they say. Where do they get off redefining the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment to mean a valdictorian of a graduating class cannot thank God or Jesus in a speech. How did it go this far from the original intent? They have stolen our constitution and vivisected our souls, and we don't even make a peep. Where did we go?

65 posted on 10/17/2007 5:25:55 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

That’s a win


66 posted on 10/17/2007 5:29:34 PM PDT by wastedyears (I don't wanna grow up, help : /)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby

The 14th amendment has given excuse for every liberal in this country to redefine the constitution and rewrite it. I heard of a case back during FDR, when they were trying to control the amount of grains produced by farmers. They alledged the interstate commerce clause was their constitutional excuse. The farmer said he raised corn to feed his pigs and cattle, and his family and none was shipped across state lines. The court ruled they still could regulate his volumn of production. They just took his rights away by fiat. It is happening every damn day in every walk of life and we say nothing. Not one damn thing do we say any more. What a crying shame. The government is what the judiciary, and legislative and excutive leaders say it is. They take an oath to uphold the constitution and then systematically set out to destroy it. And it is in tattered rags my friend. It is nearly shreaded to an unrecognizable rag. That precious progenitor of freedom. What a crying shame.


67 posted on 10/17/2007 5:33:28 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bttt


68 posted on 10/17/2007 5:42:41 PM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter...President '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
the 2nd amendment

the 1st amendment.....sorry.

69 posted on 10/17/2007 5:44:33 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tips up

It really is quite simple, isn’t it.


70 posted on 10/17/2007 5:52:00 PM PDT by pilipo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Scalia is what a Supreme Court justice is all about.


71 posted on 10/17/2007 5:52:54 PM PDT by ought-six ("Give me liberty, or give me death!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

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.


72 posted on 10/17/2007 5:59:04 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I am no fan of Rudy. But given a choice between him and Hillarhea or B. Hussein, I’ll have to go with Rudy. Voting for a third-party candidate in protest to having Rudy as the Republican nominee is guaranteeing a marxist (Hillarhea or B. Hussein) will be elected in 2008. America cannot survive that without a civil war. But, if a civil war is what it will take, then so be it. I would prefer, though, it never got to that point.


73 posted on 10/17/2007 6:01:07 PM PDT by ought-six ("Give me liberty, or give me death!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

those not explicitly expressed or restricted by are reserved to the states or the people ...

the constitution does not express our rights... it enumerates a small portion of them.

teeman


74 posted on 10/17/2007 6:02:17 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.”

As it stands today, they DO! Granted, I don’t think the Constitution says they do. But, I’m not one of nine black robe-wearers who said they do. And, given the ruling in Marbury v. Madison, we are stuck with what the black robes say, until another set of black robes over-turn it..


75 posted on 10/17/2007 6:04:58 PM PDT by ought-six ("Give me liberty, or give me death!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.”

As it stands today, they DO! Granted, I don’t think the Constitution says they do. But, I’m not one of nine black robe-wearers who said they do. And, given the ruling in Marbury v. Madison, we are stuck with what the black robes say, until another set of black robes over-turn it..


76 posted on 10/17/2007 6:05:08 PM PDT by ought-six ("Give me liberty, or give me death!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

“Scalia is what a Supreme Court justice is all about.”

Yes, the kind DUNCAN HUNTER promises to appoint- no ifs, ands, buts, or disclaimers....

www.gohunter08.com


77 posted on 10/17/2007 6:05:23 PM PDT by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: fetal heart beats by 21st day

Re: Your Post #77

I am a staunch Duncan Hunter supporter.


78 posted on 10/17/2007 6:07:12 PM PDT by ought-six ("Give me liberty, or give me death!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Hillary will automatically get 45% of the gimme vote.

Her opponent must get more than 45%.

At least 20% of regular voters will stay home if Rudy is annointed by the bluebloods.

DO THE MATH.


79 posted on 10/17/2007 6:09:20 PM PDT by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Glad to hear it.

I just can’t see discussing Rudy as an option. He has no principles. He will keep people away.


80 posted on 10/17/2007 6:13:02 PM PDT by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-152 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson