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.
What is the responsibility of the federal government if the state of Oregon declares all citizens over the age of 70, who are unable to sustain themselves without assistance, be euthanized?
So, it is moral to take innocent life because of the sins of the father? Can the state hold you responsible for crimes committed by your father? That is not consistent with a pro life position nor is it consistent with the constitution.
Having said that and others, I am well aware that these are difficult issues and that perhaps rhe only way to solve them is through federalism. But that has no bearing on this argument.
Would you care to rethink this?
It is a prescription for a society devoid of individual responsibility. It spawns the dumping of babies into toilets and dumpsters because people don't want them.
It is a precursor for socialism.
Oh yeah, thats already happening.
Your definition of an independent life dodges the issue - does that genome have a right to suckle sustenance from another's body, while inside it? You would call that independent? That seems arbitrary and capricious to me.
The State it can't force a woman to incubate that life with her own body, and not violate both her right to be secure in her own person, and her right to not provide servitude to another life. (much less succumb to a rapist's dominance)
Would you care to rethink this? -jwalsh07
Socialism? If you don't allow for early abortions, you're going to have to build some state funded orphanages, and have the state be parents. THAT's socialism. (The state is already in the business of husbandry, sadly) My position will inhibit socialism's inexorable progress, by reducing the amount of dependency on the state in the form of abandoned children.
Again, an innocent life is not so innocent, when it attaches itself to another's body and claims that body for a term of service and/or labor, instead of relying on its own capabilities, to sustain its own life.
A socialist is one who says we all have a right to live at each other's expense. A baby claims the right, until about 5 months after conception, to live at the mother's expense - the exact amount of time is debatable, and as you say, federalism and States can sort that out. Radical anti-abortionists - who say that a life becomes unalienably protectable from the moment of fertilization, regardless of the burden it places on other's lives and liberties, remind me of socialists. I regard my position as more of an individualist, in this instance. Individuals need to stand on their own, as early as possible. It should please you to know I think they can stand on their own earlier than birth, and that Roe V. Wade should be overtunred, and that third trimester abortions should be outlawed, in my State.
I agree. I've often wondered why supreme court picks are always singled out as either for or against abortion. I've just never understood why that is such an important issue for the left, and in the case of supreme court justices, abortion seems to be the ONLY important issue important to the left. I personally think that court has many more important matters to decide. Abortion is not protected by the Constitution, and if the left ever gets around to understanding that, then perhaps the nominating process could continues without all the crap we see today. Bogging down nominations in committee is like obstruction, but that's my opinion.
Bravo to Scalia for standing up for common sense Constitutional interpretation.
In the end, all battles in our national politics are battles of ideas. if you dont speak out your beliefs, you ideas will wither on the vine and the other side will win by default. If we cannot state our beliefs as Conservatives, we are doomed to have them twisted by Liberal lamestream press anyway, and undone by the liberals.
C'mon - take a stand for strict interpretation of the Constitution. Let Freedom Ring!
Yes. And it is not as if the strategy of saying nothing about it and hoping it will go away of its own accord has worked.
You are entitled to your opinion, but dont read into the constitution what isnt there. Men and women have their liberty restricted when medical procedures and other matters afffecting our bodies are regulated by the state. The supreme court has not abolished medical regulations. nor have they abolished the FDA. The state can forbid us from taking dangerous drugs, from taking even non-FDA approved lifesaving drugs ... and likewise can forbid for various reasons medical procedures such as those that kill the unborn. Indeed, whether we think the unborn have a 'right to life' or not, saving such lives is indeed a 'compelling state interest'. If the result is the compulsion to bear a child as nature takes its course, it is no more a threat to constitutional rights than forcing homeowners to carry flood insurance or forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets.
There is no Constituion "Right to abortion" - that was an invention of the Supreme Court in a notorious case of judicial overreaching.
Plenty of parents on adoption waiting lists. You anti-child rhetoric is --- um --- scary, frankly. America would be MUCH better off if there were no abortions in this country.
My position will inhibit socialism's inexorable progress, no, the pro-death anti-child NARAL, planned parenthood type orgs are infested with socialists. Part and parcel of dehumanizing us is thinking of humans (unborn or very old) as expendable, which makes us more amenable to socialism. Socialism and abortion have gone hand-in-hand in every place from China to Soviet Union to europe, to America.
Starting from the Right-to-LIFE perspective is inherently opposed to socialism, because the rights to life, liberty and property are all linked.
In any case, if you respect legal traditions and the rule of law and strict constitutional interpretation, you would agree with Scalia. He is right, after all.
Why not? Why is it not a moral responsibility of the mother to bear the unborn child to term without deliberately harming it? all of us as adults end up with responsibilities that restrict our freedom of action. We get a job - we have to pay taxes. we get married - we have to support and stay faithful to our spouse. The result of sex can lead to such a responsibility. Just because we have the power to eg abuse kids, embezzle money, commit adultery, commit fraud, kill others, doesnt make it right!
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
Agreed, but the distinction on "independent life" is a false one imho. Just because others depend on you, it does NOT give you the right to harm them or kill them. If that were the case, we would let Andrea Yates walk for killing her dependents. Just because an unborn humen is tied via an umbilical cord, doesnt make the situation any different. This is a dependent and as such imposes a responsibility. You cannot escape certain responsibilities when other humans are involved. The simple answer - to deny the humanity of the unborn - is imho a specious argument made only for convenience. In fact, made to justify an immoral but convenient act.
I love that argument. How inconvenient and cruel it is to force a woman to drive several hours away when all she wants to do is kill a living child. You are impossibly depraved.
I would like you to answer the question I posed regarding a state allowing the euthanizing of people over 70 who are on feeding tubes (umbilical cords) without informed consent and/or due process.
Correct. According to Justice Scalia, "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."
An umbilical cord can not be a chain by which the mother involuntarily serves the child.
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
What you are saying, in essence, is that a crime is committed only when the victim's life is independent from the aggressor's. Applying your logic, therefore, I would have total protection under the Constitution to kill the handicapped, the physically and mentally impaired, the old, the infirm, the comatose, and any other individual whose life depends on me. After all, "I'm being protected" by the Constitution as you indicate in your post #175, "not to be chain by which I involuntarily would serve some one else." Thus, I could purposeful kill by act or omission of a dependent human being for my alleged benefit --not to be a slave--
You forget that life starts at conception and that killing someone, because his/her life isn't independent from mine, violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency. The inevitable result of this trend would be to escalate from killing for my alleged benefit --not to be a slave-- to killing for the convenience of others. So we, the independent ones could improve the quality of our lives, not by mutually ennobling acts of care and assistance, but by exterminating those who fall below some arbitrary standard.
However; have you looked at the calendar?
Noticed the year?
No disrespect intended, WOSG; but, you're an anachronism.
A hell of a good, honest anachronism it sounds like...& one I'd be ecstatic to call my neighbor; but, an anaochronism nonetheless.
Things are done very differently in this, our Liberally dominated America, than the way you & I were (probably) brought up to believe was right & just.
It stinks; yes.
No doubt -- make no mistake.
Still, that's the way it is.
Our side cannot AFFORD to let the other side know *how* they're going to need to fight us, anymore.
Which is exactly what we do, and have been doing when we tell 'em which direction we're planning on moving.
Let the Leftist work for their gains & issues & let us & our side stop giving it all away.
"Discretion is the better part of valor."
If you knew me a'tall; then you'd also realize just how damned hard it is for me to have to say that, too.
No. No. No. and you know it ain't so.
Let's take a 99 year old man whose spleen is failing. He desperately needs platelets and there are some candidates that match his blood type. In your world view, the State could order someone to be brought into the hospital, slapped on a table, and an intravenous tube connected from him to transfer some of his platelets into the 99 year old man.
That's where we get, if we extend your logic.
You have to realize that independent life is the only kind of life that doesn't infringe on someone elses rights.
Dependent life, as a blastocyst is, must have a host. Most hosts are willing to be such, but they can not be made to be hosts by the state, in a free society.
The blood tube is the equivalent of the umbilical cord, which you say must remain attached to the mother until the child doesn't need it. I say the mother can't be forced to accept that, and that if the child can't live on its own, it's not murder. Just as it's not murder if the 99 year old man can't live on his own.
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.