8mm
Posted on 09/16/2008 4:24:32 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Justice Antonin Scalia is one of the most outspoken jurists on the Supreme Court when it comes to talking about abortion. Scalia repeated the mantra on Monday that he's presented to college students and community forums about how the high court doesn't have the power to declare a right to abortion.
During a speech at Utah State University's Taggart Student Center, where 1,700 people came to hear the respected judge tell it like it is, Scalia criticized those jurists who engage in what he called "abstract moralizing."
In addition to faulty decisions like Roe v. Wade, Scalia said it results in a corrupt political process where citizens and politicians expect new judges to "rewrite" the U.S. Constitution and make policy decisions normally reserved for legislatures.
"These are social preferences that can only be handled in a political process," he said.
According to a Salt Lake Tribune report, Scalia said the cure for the problem is for Americans to view the Constitution as a "static" document and support judges who won't make up the law from the bench.
Scalia touted his "originalist" views whereby he says the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning established at the time of its drafting.
That applies to pro-life issues like abortion and assisted suicide, he explained.
"I'm questioning the sanity of having value-laden decisions being made by unelected judges," he said. "Nothing I learned at Harvard or in my practice of law qualifies me to decide whether there is a right to abortion or to assisted suicide."
Scalia's comment reinforce previous statements he's made.
In April, he told students at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island that the so-called right to abortion is not found in the Constitution.
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.
And in March, he made the same point in a speech at the University of Central Missouri.
"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.
And this means that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and returned to the states or a pro-life amendment can be passed or (and this is my belief) the Supreme Court should rule that, when taken together, the Preamble and Fourteenth Amendment PROHIBIT abortion altogether.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Man I love this guy’s brain (and he has guts too)!
I read a goofy headline on an article today in our local yokel rag. “I’m Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion!” Since I don’t do drugs, I decided to pass on reading it.
Rare voice of sanity.
BUMP!
Whenever I meet someone who says something like, “I would never have an abortion (or recommend that my wife/girlfriend have one), but I don’t think it’s my right to tell others that they shouldn’t have an abortion,” I ask them how comfortable they are substituting the words “rape” and “murder” for “abortion.”
“It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy.”
In other words, the Tenth Amendment means what it says.
I was going to mention that but you beat me to it.
“I was going to mention that but you beat me to it.”
Go ahead post it anyway...we can never say that too much. :)
Tell ‘em brother. Any judge that says an adult has the right to sentence a baby to death for no reason is sick.
Roe v Wade is bad law. If we got rid of Roe v Wade, abortion would be decided by the states. Incidentally, abortion wasn't illegal in all the U.S. before Roe v Wade, one could go to New York if one wanted to murder babies, I believe.
Moreover, I don't see how a strict constructionist could see permission in the Constitution for laws decriminalizing abortion. While abortion isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, as far as I know, abortion was proscribed by the common law that existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Certainly the framers would not have exempted unborn babies from "the blessings of liberty" when future generations are explicitly mentioned in the Preamble, which sets out the purpose of the document:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.No person, group of persons or legislative body has a right to legalize murder. Period.
The Constitution only lists what powers the Federal Government has. What Scalia is saying is that the Constitution does not provide ANY guidance on abortion and is therefore something to be resolved by the several states.
Just like rape, murder, theft, drunk driving, larceny, etc., none of which are touched on by the Constitution yet are still managed just fine, thank you, at the state level.
FedGov can (and has) passed laws against such things but they are only valid in places that one of the states has no jurisdiction. (National parks, District of Columbia, U.S. territories, etc.)
A FedGov capable of giving you everything is capable of taking away everything. Be happy that we have Federalism.
We need to realize that Scalia can only say so much.
If he were to come out and say that he thinks the Constitution prohibits abortion, he might put himself in a position where he needs to recuse himself from THE case that decides Roe v. Wade. He has to speak in vague hypotheticals.
What if a state decriminalized murder? Would that be permissible, constitutionally?
In fact, abortion is murder. And I don't believe that states enjoy a constitutional right to decriminalize it. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution must necessarily assume a universal right to life. Otherwise, the rights explicitly outlined in the Constitution would rest on air, as would (and do) the rest of our rights. When you get down to it, we are currently living in a state of quasi-anarchy, as some citizens take upon themselves the power to decide, on a whim, which other citizens should live or die.
Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution states that no person may be deprived of life except by due process of law. If a state legislature wanted to codify that certain kinds of killing were okay, they could do that as long as it was voted on and the governor signed it into law. After all, states have the right to define by law what murder is. In Illinois, if you shoot a man in the back on your property at night, that's murder. In Texas it isn't.
An originalist interpretation of the Constitution must necessarily assume a universal right to life.
No. It does not.
Otherwise, the rights explicitly outlined in the Constitution would rest on air, as would (and do) the rest of our rights.
The Constitution, as written, defines no rights. It defines the powers of the federal government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution define some rights (of which a right to life is not listed except that it cannot be taken away except by due process of law) and then leave the rest to the several states.
Wanting to find a right to ban abortion in the Constitution is just as wrong, and wrong-headed, as wanting to find a right to have an abortion in the Constitution.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury...
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
...no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
B-U-M-P everyone’s accusing me
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.