Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Again Says Abortion Right Nonexistent

Bristol, RI (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to educate the law students of America and, once again, presented his explanation that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution to students at Roger Williams University. Last month, Scalia told students at the University of Central Missouri the same thing.

Scalia said a legal right to an abortion is not found in the document that guides our judicial process.

If abortion advocates wanted to create a legitimate abortion right, they should rely on passing laws in the legislature rather than asking courts to unilaterally create one, he said.

“You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea — and pass a law,” Scalia said.

As he has before, Justice Scalia, who pro-life advocates hope will someday be one of the five votes on the high court to reverse Roe v. Wade, said the Constitution is not a living document that changes with the times.

According to a report in The Day newspaper, Scalia told the RWU law school students he didn't think the Senate would confirm him today as it did on a 98-0 vote decades ago.

“The most important thing is whether this person will write the new Constitution that you like,” Scalia said of today's politicized confirmation process. “If the court's rewriting the Constitution, it's an enormously powerful political body -- and its selection will be done in a political fashion."

In his speech last month, Scalia made the same point that the so-called right to abortion is nowhere found in the guiding document.

"The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all," Scalia said of abortion. "It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy."

"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said.

During the speech, Scalia also rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is bound by precedent -- such as in the Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade cases.

"For me, perhaps most important of all, does the precedent allow me to function as a lawyer, which is what a judge is supposed to do?" he asked.

Exactly. However there are some who believe that life is already protected, and some that believe it is a privacy issue.

Roe v Wade is bad law, legislated from the bench, instead of the ballot box, where this issue belongs.

If the zealots on both sides have any moxie at all, they would let the people speak with their vote, rather than try to force some ethereal meaning that is not spelled out clearly for either side.

But every time I mention this approach, I get flamed.

How can the constitution be construed to protect the “right” of SOME people, without due process of law, to completely destroy each and every right of 50 million slaughtered unborn children and counting? Scalia is correct. There is and can be no such “right” to murder. Under the 5th and 14th, neither the federales nor the states have any power to stand idly by ignoring the slaughter much less encouraging and funding it. The 5th and 10th are simultaneous in time as parts of the Bill of Rights. In such matters where there are simultaneous enactments and ambiguity is claimed, the courts will regard and construe them so as to make them consistent. This means the babies win as far as the federales are concerned. The 14th is a later enactment. Where there is ambiguity or possible conflict between two enactments that are not simultaneous, the courts will construe the latter enactment as controlling. This means the babies win at a state and local level because the constitution demands it.

Based on what I know about Justice Scalia's lecture from the referenced article, I have a problem with his shallow explanation, in my opinion, about abortion and the Constitution. Scalia doesn't seem to understand that, in order for the people to understand why the USSC's decision in Roe v. Wade was nothing more than a special-interest perversion of the Constitution, epidemic ignorance of the Constitution and how the government is supposed to work must first be addressed.

In fact, given that the majority of states had laws regulating abortion when Roe v. Wade was decided, state lawmakers should have had few problems retaliating against the Court's Roe v. Wade decision by flexing their Article V muscle to ratify a pro-life amendment. Instead, our lawmakers just on their hands for the most part, evidence of constitutional ignorance in high places.

So let's begin eradicating widespread constitutional ignorance by examining the Constitution and abortion in more detail.

The truth of the matter is that Roe v. Wade is just one example, in my opinion, where the USSC has wrongly ignored 10th A. protected state powers in state power related cases, a perversion of the Constitution which began in the days of FDR's dirty politics. This post (<-click) tells how FDR's constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs arguably let to the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.

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.