Posted on 01/25/2008 5:22:21 PM PST by wagglebee
Starkville, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Justice Antonin Scalia told students at Mississippi State University on Thursday that the nation's high court shouldn't be determining the legality of key moral issues like abortion. He said the high court is no more suited to determine if abortion should be legal than the average voter.
Scalia is a long-time proponent of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting state's have the ability to determine their own abortion laws.
“What I am questioning is the propriety, indeed, the sanity of letting value-laden decisions such as these be made for the entire society,” Scalia told the students in a speech.
“Even if there were scientific right answers, there would be no reason to believe that law-trained professionals could discern those answers better than say medical doctors or engineers or ethicists or Mr. Joe Six Pack," Scalia added, according to an Associated Press report.
“Our judges’ lack of special qualification to deal with such questions is disguised by the fact that they provided their answers in classic legal opinion form. It is blindingly clear that judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral,” Scalia said.
Scalia said, as recently as October, that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution.
In a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture, he reconfirmed that view.
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.
Pro-life advocates hope that another justice with the same views as Scalia can be added to the court to join with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to overturn Roe.
Here's a novel idea....how about We The People deciding, hmmm?
Lazarus or Frankenstein?
Thanks. I never read that quote. Prescient.
Yep. Old problem. Egos rise to power, along with the bodies that house them.
There are/were some wrongnesses written into the Constitution. It is no sacred document given by God’s hand. But there are processes for addressing those wrongs and activist judges isn’t one of them.
They should not be tolerated.
bttt!
Well, in order for this overriding, necessary objective, to occur something very intelligent, but unlikely, must happen.
The so-called “social conservatives” who have sworn to stay home rather than vote for any of the likely pub candidates will have to somehow come to realize that to do so is. objectively, a vote for shrillary, and consequently, certain death for untold millions of future unborn because our last opportunity for a generation to shape a conservative court will be squandered at the altar of “principle”
Why is this so hard to fathom ?
btt
Fred probably doesn’t wish to rise again or he would have stayed in.
“... a vote for shrillary, and consequently, certain death for untold millions of future unborn...”
Just out of curiosity:
Why would a social liberal rhino as POTUS do any different? Having an (R) after a name guarantees what, exactly?
Once the situation has devolved to the point where it’s all about which POS to choose from a steaming pile of S’s, it is way way past too late.
I’ll be one of those voting for whatever value I can find to salvage out of this crap, but I do wonder why so many seem to think that getting the (R) in at POTUS means anything of any value if it’s just another quasi-leftard, except for some vestiges of party affiliation.
If she wants money, it's your kid too. If she wants to kill it, it's all hers to do as she will.
Those who were pro-slavery were free.
Those who are pro-abortion are born.
Abortion is nothing if not a cause for convenience.
And how EXACTLY would voting for a pro-abortion Republican for president be any different?
So have the SCOTUS rescind Roe V. Wade and move along!
I have some news for you...If and when the Court may overturn Roe v Wade, Hillary Clinton will trump it with a Court stacked by her.
Thank God Bill Clinton isn't eligible.
Cases are “brought” the Supreme Court only if 4 out of 9 justices vote to hear the case. So, in a certain way, the justices do hand-pick cases that they want to hear and rule on. Don’t be fooled into thinking justices with certain agendas don’t get together and vote to grant cert to cases they want to have a say in.
Thats what I just said. However, McCain would probably compromise with Fatassed Teddy and make the court just like Hers Highness, just to be a maverick.
Ron Paul is starting to resonate. Can’t believe it.
Finding such a case isn't enough. There was such a case in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), but the desired overruling did not occur. Also, Justice Scalia doesn't want the Court to make a Human Life Amendment type of ruling. He just wants the Court to stay out of the issue; like it did before 1973.
The so-called “social conservatives” who have sworn to stay home ..... to do so is. objectively, a vote for shrillary, .... a conservative court will be squandered at the altar of “principle”
Why is this so hard to fathom ?
***********************************************
We understand full well that a vote for McCain (anything to get along with Teddy!!) or Rudy (”I think Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is a great jurist!”) is identical to a vote for Hill as far as the SC goes AND much more destructive to the RNC which is badly in need of a tune-up ,,, if we get Rudy or McVain it won’t be fixed with a tune-up ,, it’ll have to be scrapped... and that would put us on the same path as ancient Rome and Greece with a big Wil-E-Coyote rocket strapped on...
Well, to each who responded in generally the same vein
“What dif will electing a Rino make ?”
The difference is, the POSSIBILITY, however infinitesimal, that when the likely 3 judges retire in the next administration they will not be replaced with paramours of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It’s a chance, maybe a slim one, versus a GUARANTEED liberal court appointed by the beast.
I prefer slim odds to no odds at all.
Right-wing, evangelical, conservative, heterosexual, white male here. Any questions ?
“Justice Anonin Scalia, whose brain I would want if I did not have my own...” -ElRushbo
IMO, it's either Mitt Romney....or come January, it's Madam President Hillary Clinton.
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.