Posted on 03/14/2002 5:50:19 AM PST by wwcc
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, during a luncheon in Buffalo on Wednesday, re-emphasized his view that women don't have a constitutional right to an abortion. His belief flies against the court's majority decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which found a constitutionally protected right of privacy that covers abortion.
"My votes in abortion cases have nothing to do with my pro-life views," Scalia said after his speech at the Hyatt Regency Buffalo. "They have to do with the text of the Constitution. And there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion."
At times flashing a prickly wit, Scalia also criticized the process for selecting new Supreme Court justices as being highly political today.
And he defended the court's 5-4 decision in the 2000 presidential election that stopped ballot counting in Florida and handed victory to George W. Bush.
The recurring theme throughout Scalia's 40-minute speech, and in answers to audience questions, was the importance of a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution.
"It says what it says, and it ought not to be twisted," he said.
Scalia, who is the foremost conservative member of the Supreme Court, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. .
Scalia devoted the bulk of his speech to the clauses in the First Amendment that ensure government may not restrict people's religious practices, nor impose religion on anyone.
Judicial rulings on those clauses - and the entire Constitution - must be based on their text, the authors' original intent or historical practice, he said.
In quoting George Bernard Shaw - using a phrase later appropriated by Robert F. Kennedy - Scalia said those who believe in judicial reshaping of the Constitution "dream things that never were."
The appropriate way to deal with an issue that demands updating judicial precedent or the Constitution is by legislative action or, where appropriate, a constitutional amendment.
"We have an enduring Constitution, not a living one," Scalia said.
After his prepared remarks, Scalia took questions and delved into several hot-button issues.
He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment.
The fight over abortion rights already is heating up, as pro-choice groups dig in for a battle whenever Bush gets to make a Supreme Court appointment.
Picking up that theme, Scalia blamed the the bitter political fights over court nominations on the belief that judges are free to rethink the Constitution.
"Every time you're selecting a Supreme Court justice, you're conducting a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution ought to mean," he said.
Scalia defended the court's decision in the 2000 balloting debacle, saying it properly returned authority in the matter to the Florida Legislature.
Organizers said 930 tickets were sold for the event, sponsored by the Chabad House of Western New York and the University at Buffalo Law School.
How reminicent of NewtG comin' out hell bent for election & essentially threatening the Leftists running the Lamestream Press, following the '94 elections.
The socialist SOBs haven't let-up on the Right, since.
There's really something seriously wrong with the people who're at the forefront of the Right when they don't know when to keep their mouths shut.
The time to speak of this (& all other matters dear to the conservative cause) is after a policy has been implemented; & then?
Only as an explaination of decision(s) already made.
What in the hell was possibly gained here?
Other than providing the Left a static target to aim at?
Geheeezzzz.
Washington refused kingship.
They wanted a democratic - not an aristocratic or absolutist - form of government. They were trying to avoid the historical pitfalls of such forms.
Actually, they often appealed to "reason".
Rhetoric is an ancient skill, always highly valued.
It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.
And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?
But you said they were trying to create a "stable government." The above belies that statement.
> Actually, they often appealed to "reason".
Rhetoric is an ancient skill, always highly valued.
Ladies and gentlemen, come see the amazing Non-Sequitor Man. He can say things that bear no relevance to anything else, but will insist that they do! Come one! Come all!
> It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.
And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?
Nobody . . . and everybody. It's just that the USSC decides which laws are enforcable in the courts. Wait. Never mind. It's a subtle concept. No sense in confusing you. You are right. Never mind.
To Mudboy Slim, who I assume will show up pretty soon;
It's true. I said I'd quit. But I thought I could just lurk. Then I thought just a few uncontroversial comments. Now, here I am back in the thick of it and wishing I weren't.
In my defense I'm not the only one whose's addicted. I'll have to do what all addicts do. Try again.
As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Running your pie-hole to no purpose, accomplishes nothing.
What I like is different from what I think is morally right. When someone makes a moral claim, they are not merely stating their preference. If I say that abortion is wrong, I am not saying merely that I don’t like it, I am saying it is wrong regardless of whether I like it or not. Without this distinction, all morality collapses into mere personal preference or moral relativism.
Evolutionist/atheist Aldous Huxley said, “We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” It is my view that many relativists do not want objective morals to exist as they may then be accountable for their moral actions. Regardless of the reasons why it is held, relativism reduces morality to mere personal preference. The only way to have an immoral individual is to have a moral standard, but in moral relativism, there is no such standard as everyone does his own thing. The tests of logic and practice can be effectively used to test the notion of moral relativism.
First, the very concept of morality suggests the existence of a standard or reference point to be deviated from. Human beings make moral choices daily. Second, to state that “there are no moral absolutes” (as I have heard many people say) is an example of a self-referential and self stultifying statement because it is making an objective (or universal) observation about the nature of morality which is in direct contradiction to the statement itself. This is like saying, “The only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes.” No moral absolutes are allowed in moral relativism. In this regard, it commits logical suicide. Moral relativism fails the test of logic.
Another way to test the validity of moral relativism is to use the test of practice, i.e. to observe how self-proclaimed relativists live. The fact is that no one can live as a relativist, thus there is no such thing as a relativist. The relativist must erase all language of should, praise, blame, good, bad, right, wrong, from his vocabulary as these words and concepts suggest an objective moral standard and to employ them is a contradiction of the core essence of relativism. Furthermore, a relativist cannot complain about right wing extremists, someone stealing his stereo or kicking him in the knee, or object if I tell him his relativism is wrong. No one can live this way. I have personally talked to self-proclaimed relativists who have told me in so many words, “Don’t force your morality on me.” However, if it is right for me to do so, then the relativist cannot object without contradicting the relativistic ethic. I might reply, “Why not?” whereby the relativist might reply, “Because it isn’t right to force your morality on others,” whereby I could reply, “Is that your morality and why are you forcing it on me?” If it is right for me to force my morality on a relativist, then under the rules of relativism, it is right. Relativism fails the test of practice. It is true that I, as a moral absolutist, cannot live strictly according to absolute morals, however this does not contradict the moral absolutist view because it is not inconsistent with reason, human experience and practice, and I readily admit that I, as a sinful human being, cannot live up to perfect moral standards.
The wider practical implications of moral relativism are frightening. If moral relativism is a valid ethic, then there can be no moral difference between torturing a baby and feeding the poor; Hitler could not be wrong, neither could female circumcision in Egypt, or human sacrifice; Murder, rape, incest, and burglary cannot be declared wrong by a moral relativist if they are right to me (these acts may be legally wrong, but in relativism, laws can have no objective moral basis, therefore to say something is illegal is not to say it is morally wrong). A relativist can only say they are wrong in his personal view, but who cares about his opinion if I am a serial killer with my own personal ethic to follow? Besides, the word “wrong” is meaningless in relativism. A relativist might respond that situations are so diverse and complex that no one moral rule can be universal and I would grant this, however, this is very different from proving that relativism is correct. At best, this shows that absolute principles must be applied to different situations. If relativism is a valid ethic, i.e. if it is true that we ought to allow each person to define their own moral good, then it follows that those who do the most consistent job of this would be the best kind of people. We have a label for a person who makes up their own moral rules - a SOCIOPATH! If the person who manifests relativism in the most consistent fashion is the best role model, then a sociopath would be the poster boy for relativism (perhaps like Harris and Klebold of Columbine fame). Thus, if relativism is a valid ethic, Harris and Klebold were not morally wrong in slaughtering 13 people at Columbine High - they were good relativists.
I believe the tests of reason, experience, and practice sufficiently demonstrate that moral relativism is a false anti-intuitive ethic. If our society and educational institutions continue to give validity to this absurd brand of morality, e.g. “values clarification” and “situational ethics,” then I believe we can expect more Columbine-style massacres in the future, as our children will learn to do whatever they like, whenever they like, without regard to anyone else. Since relativism is given validity by our nation’s schools, can we escape the conclusion that we are breeding sociopaths?
Are you a sociopath? If you are a moral relativist, I don't see how you can escape the label.
Individuals can, and do, make their own decisions about what is moral. Some conform to generally accepted systems. Some don't.
As you say no society can exist in which all systems are given equal validity. So we have law - which is public morality. There is and always has been tension between the two. "Render unto Caesar..." is one way the tension has been resolved.
So far I think we are in agreement. Where we differ is that you feel a need for, and find evidence of, an objective morality - most probably religious in origin. I don't. Certainly we are all human beings and that places certain constraints on us but how, and in what detail, that translates to specific moral rules is, for me, far from definite and much subject to modification and experimentation.
Someone has sadly misinformed you about the extent of your abilities.
That's "non-sequitor". I mean, I wrote the thing twice. Look, I've read enough student attempts at proofs to recognize when one statement does not follow from the other: Your statements do not follow. They barely relate. They comes from left field. It is bizarre to say the least. The very least.
Now you assume that my "deference" to you is . . .
. . . a little humor at your expense. Surprised you haven't accomodated to it.
your superior qualities
Only by comparison. Only by comparison.
And why would that be without some objective morality?
Some yes. That's why I included that sentence. But how do you find it? I maintain that objective morality is no easier to assess than physical reality. Maybe harder.
Non sequitur. From Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary 1950. No alternate spelling shown.
I read you as small-minded and pompous. But this is too much.
What? Now it's ad hominem. [spell checked -ed.] Let's see, which cliche have you left out? The strawman. That's got to be coming next.
Second comment: That sounds like a pejorative. But that couldn't be unless you were appealing to a common (dare we say objective?) morality. In which case, persuasion itself is useless. Which makes philosophical debate useless.
That just means that they have to follow the rules. It doesn't mean that it has to be fair. The prisons are full of people who got due process but they didn't a fair trial or justice for that matter.
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.