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.
You are correct. But the left wants to repeat the big lie.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to raise Armies and Navies.
The Constitution is silent on the specific issue of abortion, but the 9th Amendment says that that silence doesn't deny or disparage an unmentioned right. The Constitution is not silent on the right of a person to be secure in her person. It is also not silent on the right of one person (a mother) to not have to serve another (a fetus). I think there's some guidance there.
You are correct. However, the Declaration of Independence does not carry with it the force of law.
The State? were did that come from? It's not from my post, that's for sure.
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.
What you are saying very simply is that the mother has the right to kill her dependent child but according to you we shouldn't call it murder.
Just as it's not murder if the 99 year old man can't live on his own.
Right, but euthanasia is, which was my point. So is abortion.
You want the state to step in and arrest a doctor for murder who cuts the lifeline of a totally dependent 3 mm long fetus who has no hope of living on his own? That's where the state comes in - you infer it, by calling it murder, in all cases, making no exceptions.
No, you're twisting my words to make me look heartless. Demagoging the issue, like a liberal does. I'm saying the mother has a right to be independent from other lives, and 'secure in her own person'. That's almost a direct quote from the 4th Amendment.
As you said before - even Scalia admitted that he thinks a Constitutional amendment is necessary to clear this issue up. That right there is an admission that a State that allows abortion is not necessarily doing anything unconstitutional.
I would hate to see a Constitutional Amendment get passed on this issue, because there are too many variables, and it could never cover every conceivable case. The States can work this out, and they'll end up doing something more restrictive than Roe V. Wade is on abortion if that could ever be overturned, as well it should. I don't think it's possible to write a constitutional amendment that would work, because of the way our government is structured.
I'm just never going to see how a rapist could force a 17 year old girl to carry his baby, in a society that calls itself free. Nicolai Chowchesku outlawed contraception in his country (Romania), and he was a brutal dictator. Outlawing abortion in all cases, is going to result in similar situations that arose in that country, rising in this country.
We are talking about a life which is totally dependent on someone else's, remember? You brought that up. A life that is so dependent it can't express its will, i.e. the unborn. To kill someone who can't express his or her will or whose life is dependent of mine is murder in my book and I will leave at that, since we can't agree.
As for the tactics of defeating the Left: It's important to as often as possible get conservative views aired. Suppression of dissent begins by silencing dissent - it is the main form of media anti-conservative bias, simply ignoring our voices. Why do you think the Liberals are making a big show of Left/liberal-antigun Rosie lesbian outing? Talk about that, and pretty soon we are asking dumb questions like should Rosie adopt (blech) ... and it distracts from reality of moral degradation somewhere else. Would conservatives have been better off if that hour had been devoted to a conservative Justice explaining why the Constitution doesnt say anything about abortion and why the constituion is an 'enduring' document??? YOU bet!
WOSG = WiseOldSuperGenius :-)
That is all you need to say. There is no specific right to abortion in the Constitution. You can imagine there is one, if you want to engage in loosey-goosey interpretation of the Constitution ... as in ...
but the 9th Amendment says that that silence doesn't deny or disparage an unmentioned right. The Constitution is not silent on the right of a person to be secure in her person. ... ahem, the 4th says to be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures". Unless you attempt to interpret the regulation of abortion medical procedure as an unreasonable search and sezure you are grasping at straws ... It is also not silent on the right of one person (a mother) to not have to serve another (a fetus). I think there's some guidance there. And it is silent on the inherent right to smoke crack, the right to have sex with animals and consenting 12 years olds, and our right to experiment with radiocative substances in our basement chemistry labs, and our right to engage in freewheeling capitalism amongst consenting adults. Frankly, of all the rights to 'find' here, the 'right' to kill a fetus is quite an unusual one. But there is some 'penumbra' so we can all pretend it's there for abortion yet not for any of these other activities.
You are using a fallacious argument, the slippery slope argument. It is fallactious because there are both factual and moral distinctions. The State is not actively requiring anyone to be subject to a medical procedure, rather outlawing abortion is forbidding a medical procedure. Second, pregnancy is a natural state, a natural consequence of sex; the state didnt create the situation, the parents did. The situation is therefore more analogous to someone who consents to something, then midway changes their mind, even though it will kill someone else.
Rather than make analogies to different situations, let's deal with the situation at hand: On the one side, the State may forbid the mother from killing the fetus, and require to fulfill responsibilities as the mother of an pre-born human. On the other side, the State might permit the ending of pre-born lives.
Since the State already requires us to fulfill many many respsonsibilities and forbids many things from our bodies, whether regulated by FDA, DEA, USDA, or forbidden medical devices, outlawed drugs, etc. it is a reach to suppose the outlawing of one particular medical procedure - which happens to be unique in that it KILLS - is the *only procedure that should be completely free from regulation* !
In any case, whatever the viewpoint on abortion good or bad, it is clear that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Legislative bodies, not courts, should decide this.
It's unreasonable for the State to insist that a rapist's germ be carried to term, by say an innocent 17 year old girl. She should be allowed to terminate the connection between her life and the issue inside her seizing her body for its own purposes.
Also, the 13th amendment protects her from another person requiring involuntary servitude of her body. If the state insists that the baby (or zygote) be served, it becomes a violation of her 13th Amendment rights.
I was refuting someone else's argument against me, who started it. I did it for illustration purposes. Of course they're not the same thing. If someone twists my logic, I'll show them how I can twist theirs.
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.