Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Discusses Church-State Separation
ASSOCIATED PRESS / Las Vegas Sun ^ | 1.12.03 | ASSOCIATED PRESS /

Posted on 01/12/2003 6:44:01 PM PST by rface

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia complained Sunday that courts have gone overboard in keeping God out of government.

Scalia, speaking at a religious ceremony, said the constitutional wall between church and state has been misinterpreted both by the Supreme Court and lower courts.

As an example, he pointed to a ruling in California that barred students from saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God."

That appeals court decision is on hold pending further consideration by the same court, but the Supreme Court could eventually be asked to review the case.

Scalia, the main speaker at an event for Religious Freedom Day, said past rulings by his own court gave the judges in the Pledge case "some plausible support" to reach that conclusion.

However, the justice said he believes such decisions should be made legislatively, not by courts.

The rally-style event drew a lone protester, who silently held a sign promoting the separation of church and state.

"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.

The rest of the crowd repeatedly cheered Scalia, whose son, Paul, is a priest at a nearby Catholic church. The justice, also a Catholic, is a father of nine.

Several hundred people joined him in singing "God Bless America" after a brief parade through downtown.

"He's the voice of reason on the Supreme Court," said Jim McFall, a retired FBI agent who organized the Knights of Columbus parade. "His remarks were right on the money. The pendulum has swung too far and people have said `enough is enough.' We'll see it swing back."

Scalia used the event to repeat criticisms that the Constitution is being liberally interpreted. "It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman," he said.

The Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, but Scalia said the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life.

"That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust' on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; camden; catholic; catholiclist; churchandstate; columbus; italian; justicescalia; knights; kofc; newjersey; nj; religion; scalia; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: rwfromkansas
You little testicle-impaired twit..
61 posted on 01/14/2003 6:34:56 PM PST by jo6pac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jo6pac
I see getting compared to liberals doesn't exactly thrill you. Well, tough.
62 posted on 01/14/2003 7:15:57 PM PST by rwfromkansas (www.fairtax.org: It is time for a FAIRTAX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
You're right; that's my mistake. But Maryland was noticably more Catholic than nearly every other state at the time. Instead of allowing only Protestants to hold local office, Marylanders merely limited it to all Christians (Jews were disallowed until the first few decades of the 1800s, and athiests were until the 1960s, as was the case everywhere). Yeah, I just looked that up, but my "research" was spurred by your reply.
63 posted on 01/16/2003 9:14:47 PM PST by JaimeD2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JaimeD2
wow - I respect someone who acknowledges they learned something - dont find too many admitting that here at FR

I have learned plenty and try to acknowledge it when it happens.
64 posted on 01/16/2003 9:37:20 PM PST by Notwithstanding (America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rface
Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

65 posted on 06/03/2003 5:26:12 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson