Posted on 11/23/2010 3:58:06 PM PST by wagglebee
RICHMOND, Virginia, November 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed the modern U.S. judiciary and the high court for using the idea of a “living constitution” to invent new rules and meanings that have led to a “right” to abortion and decriminalized homosexual conduct.
Scalia made his remarks last Friday during a University of Richmond luncheon lecture entitled “Do Words Matter?” The event was covered both by the Associated Press.
“The Constitution says what it says and it doesn’t say anything more,” said Scalia to an audience of 250 people, most of them legal professionals and academics.
The 74-year-old jurist, appointed to the high court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, warned that government by judges is inevitable when the original meaning of legal language in laws and constitutions is not respected. This attitude, he said, allows “five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”
“Under the guise of interpreting the Constitution and under the banner of a living Constitution, judges, especially those on the Supreme Court, now wield an enormous amount of political power,” continued Scalia, “because they don’t just apply the rules that have been written, they create new rules.”
Scalia pointed out that the high court distorted the meaning of “due process” (referring to legal procedure) in the 14th Amendment to invent new rights under a “made up” concept of “substantial due process.” That has allowed the 14th Amendment to become the gateway to legal abortion and other behaviors, which the constitutional authors never intended and viewed as criminal.
“The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word - liberty - nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.”
He also commented on the modern confirmation process of Supreme Court justices, saying it was akin to a “mini-constitutional convention” because Senators are fighting about how a justice will interpret words.
“The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.
The AP reports that after the lecture, Scalia signed copies of his new book, “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges,” and was going to lecture a class on the constitution’s separation of powers at UR’s law school.
Justice Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, are the high court’s two jurists that firmly embrace an “originalist” doctrine - abiding by the original intent and context of legal language - when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.
Scalia has criticized the high court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as an “improper” ruling, saying the founding charter of the U.S. federal government had nothing to do either with abortion or even things like homosexual activity.
If the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its position on Roe, abortion would once again become a criminal matter for the states to decide how to regulate or prohibit.
bump
So live in a state where that’s legal. Don’t expect that the Constitution has language that protects your every depraved thought. Or get busy with the amendment process.
I am with you Justice, watch your back, man.
bflr
That’s the thing though, I don’t see anything in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to legislate what grown adults do sexually in the privacy of their own home. I speak here only of the federal constitution because we are talking about justice scalia. Remember the U.S. constitution for the most part outlines what the federal government can and cannot do. It does not outline everything a citizen can or cannot do.
Wow, somewhat well done, Justice Scalia.
Now just address the substitution of due process as a right, for substantial due process as a privilege, and you've said something that can actually change things.
Not when it comes to the Commerce Clause:
______________________________________
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Scalia
______________________________________
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Justice Thomas
______________________________________
Which is the originalist position, and which is the elastic position?
I do not blame him for being angry....
Scalia’s critique of Roe and similar cases is spot on. No argument.
But add to that: Since when is it okay, as in abortion, to tear a little baby girl or boy apart limb from limb? Any politician who can’t see that this should be illegal is going to have to remain suspect, even though they may be clever on other issues...
Amen
“Justice Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, are the high court’s two jurists that firmly embrace an “originalist” doctrine - abiding by the original intent and context of legal language - when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.”
I fully concurr with them. The Constitution MUST be interpreted in light of what its original intent was. If an issue comes up that is not specifically addressed in the constitution, it is spitting on the Constitution to illrationally or illogically extrapolate beyond what the original intent of the document was. Roe vs. Wade was a terrible abuse of the intent of the Constitution.
When matters are not, within logical reason, addressed in the Constitution, then the courts must defer the matter to States to decide or for the constitution to be ammended. States should never have been forced to accept abortion as a constitutional right....or whatever convoluted reasoning that Roe came up with.
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.