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.
Ah! You misunderstood. "The hand of God" was sarcasm. You see, there is no way to get a judiciary in a representative Republic without either (1) electing them or (2) appointing them. Option (2) is the least political, hence the founders were attempting to remove politics from the process.
Religion is the fountainhead from which absolute morals spring.
Actually, you'd be surprised at what is considered immoral in different cultures at different points in history with different religious views, and how universal it seems to be. There are simply prevailing moral trends that persist from society to society and from generation to generation.
Even hard-core religious zealots of any stripe recognize the fact that morality has fringes as God is unknowable and our perceptions of Him are filtered through humanity. Well, except Muslims. It's part of their faith that the Koran is immutable and literally handed down from Allah and copied exactly every time.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is seen as immoral and corrupt because it is seen as Godless, as against religion and its teachings.
Careful with the passive voice. It's a strawman just waiting to happen. The liberal interpretation is condemned simply because it makes up things that ain't there. The closest you'll get to somebody saying that the Constitution bans abortion, for example, is the "life, liberty, . . ." clause in the Declaration.
But I'm not going to bother to defend what you think that other people think, because that's defending a scarecrow.
(innundo in tribute to The Philadelphia Story)
"I hate to say it but: There you go again!" I'm sure this has some relevance. Maybe a clever aside. Not sure, never saw the film. For me, that era consisted exclusively of the Marx Brothers.
implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance
Actually, that was an inference, which tells more about the hearer than the speaker.
Nope. Didn't misunderstand and have already dealt with this issue in an earlier post. I guess you read only those posts directed to you (an inference), or remember only what you want to (another inference). Sometimes I do that too, but there's always the risk of getting caught with your pants down - as with spelling errors.:)
Actually, you'd be surprised at what is considered immoral in different cultures at different points in history with different religious views, and how universal it seems to be.
Nope. Wouldn't be surprised and have dealt with the issue in an earlier post as well - althought not as completely or directly as the above. Right there are universals but wrong there are also major differences. Cannabalism, for example.
Well, except Muslims.
Muslims are not too different than medievil Christians or Biblical era Jews.
Careful with the passive voice. It's a strawman just waiting to happen. The liberal interpretation is condemned simply because it makes up things that ain't there.
I don't think so. History is full of groups and individuals who change their legal and political positions in accord with their needs of the moment. I thought I illustrated this when I brought up Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Conservative Republicans of the late 19th century but maybe not. I'm fresh out of other examples but I'm sure you get the point.
"I hate to say it but: There you go again!" I'm sure this has some relevance. Maybe a clever aside...
implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance
I don't know what you mean by "There you go again" but this was "just a little humor at your expense". A very, very clever little girl mispronounced (and undoubtedly would have misspelled) the word.
Actually, that was an inference, which tells more about the hearer than the speaker.
Nope. It was an implication. Come on. 'Fess up. Don't be cowardly.
I see a right to abortion in the 9th Amendment, and in the 4th Amendment - the right to be secure in one's person.
Life begins at independence. A woman can't be forced to use her body to provide life support for another, if she doesn't want to. You can extend this logic out to support a position against welfare. It's entirely consistent with conservatism. The state has no business in protecting the life of the unborn until that unborn life can live on its own, (no one (mother) should have to live for the sake of another(a physically attached person))
The Constitution places "persons" in an inferior position, to "citizens". Persons are not necessarily free. Children do not attain full liberty until they are responsible even though they are citizens, as defined by the 14th Amendment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
That is a deprivation liberty in accordance with due process of law. If age discrimination can be used to deprive liberty, it can be used to deprive life too. Murder is a state, not federal crime. The Constitution leaves it up to the States to outlaw murder, and they do just fine with that obligation (As they would many other obligations, like education, health care, welfare, drug regulation, etc., had it not been for Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment allowing Congress to butt in).
The Constitution leaves it up to the States to decide how long before birth life begins to be something it is responsible for protecting. They will do just fine on that too.
If a State decides that it is under no obligation to protect life until, say, 6 months after conception (i.e. it decides that's when life becomes independent), then neither I nor the Constitution has a problem with that. That would allow a woman to choose abortion up to 6 months into the term. I think this is what would happen if Roe V. Wade were properly overturned. - Abortion would be available, but less convenient, and the Constitution would be healthier.
I'm not pro-choice, but I'm pro-state-choice, and pro-Constitution.
I sometimes get overzealous in my pinging (and duly chastised!)
..Sooo, let me know if you want off (or on) my ping list...
Pretty much, it didn't take long for me to be interested elsewhere.
(an inference) Uh, no, not according to the definition of the word.
Muslims are not too different than medievil Christians or Biblical era Jews.
I would respectfully disagree. In fact, I would think that Jesus would find the religious leaders of his day more tolerant of dissent than mullahs.
History is full of groups and individuals who change their legal and political positions in accord with their needs of the moment.
Hence the value of an immutable Constitution. If not, then why bother having the thing in the first place?
I don't know what you mean by "There you go again"
Maybe I should avoid some future problems: Do you know to what it refers?
this was "just a little humor at your expense". A very, very clever little girl mispronounced (and undoubtedly would have misspelled) the word.
Hope you haven't quit the day job.
Nope. It was an implication.
So now you claim to know my mind better than me. Quick quiz: How many fingers am I holding up?
Nope. But I do know that it's the only thing in your reply that I find even a little interesting.
And?
That amendment nullified the debt owed slaveowners (slavery had already been abolished by the South in the North when the South willingly ratified the 13th Amendment) for emancipation - the first instance of the Federal Government taking an individual's property without compensation, and it still hasn't broken the habit.
The 14th Amendment is a fraud:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
Thanks for bringing up the subject, but lets get back to abortion.
Surely you're not accusing me of youth and inexperience...So? (I could fill in the rest but only at the risk of implication/inference/innuendo)
That would be quite impossible.
And don't call me Shirley.
The point is that the states cannot not outlaw murder. The federal government and the constitution are required to protect the rights of the American people. The only debatable point is, when is a person a person and since person is analagous to human, when is an unborn human.
From Post #96. The first "non-sequitur". The thinkers of the 18th century were strongly affected by the wars of the previous two centuries. They distrusted religion, monarchy, and all claims to absolute truth. I refer you to "The Age of Voltaire" by Will and Ariel Durant for a good description of the time. The founders of our country were a part of that group. It is therefore not reasonable to think they would write found a country based on the absolute immutability of some document. Any reading of the Federalist papers shows that the Constitution was a political document right from the beginning. The Constitution was written by two men and adopted by a group of others who argued about every point. It was not universally admired and its meaning was disputed immediately.
From Post #102. The second "non-sequitur".
A reply to your claim "Actually they appealed to reason". Actually they were largely a group of lawyers and were partisan as hell - something Washington complained about. Actually political discourse at the time was far more bitter and ill-mannered than today. Actually spin - more properly known as rhetoric - was coin of the realm then just as now and just as previously.
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.