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.
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!
I hope he doesn't apply that reasoning to Parker v D.C., the Second Amendment case the Court will hear.
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! : - )
BTTT