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.
Since you bring up the issue of volition, and natural consequences, how do you address my arguments in favor of early abortion in the case of rape? Hardly voluntary natural consequences entailing living up to one's responsibility for paying for a few minutes of pleasure.
I agree. I used to be pro-abortion but since I've been changing my views on this issue. Could you Scripturally show me that abortion is wrong in any case or? I have asked this question of people coming from a religious point of view and have found it's not a Scriptural issue yet rather an emotional one. Emotional I don't need or want but Scriptural I do. Thanks!
You always use the word "kill". How can you kill something that can't live on its own? It's not really alive, it requires the help of another's life, until it achieves independence.
An abortion doesn't have to kill the fetus, just remove all life support that is not autonomous. If it can't sustain its own life after that, it dies of natural causes.
But one last question.
When your wife was preganant, did you come home and ask her how the parasitic blastocyst was or did you ask how the baby was doing?
Ridiculous.
You are illustrating wonderfully the WISDOM OF SCALIA. Scalia made it clear that the rule of law has a firm foundation only through reading the Constitution what is really there, and consider the meaning of those who wrote it.
Here you are, twisting the term 'seizure'. The baby 'seizes' the mother? Excuse me, but a tiny fetus barely has limbs to seize anything. As you noted, this fetus is the most powerless thing possible, wholly dependent on the mother. The pregnancy is a perfectly natural process and more a symbiosis than anything else, and the 'state' has nothing to do with it. Calling this state of dependency a 'seizure' just so it fits your argument is dreadfully poor logic and bad use of English.
The original intent of the 4th amendment had to do with the experience of colonists who had their property seized and searches without warrants by british soldiers. the closest analogy today is what Israel is doing in Palestinian camps to root out terrorists. It's not even remotely close to the abortion situation.
Twisting the Constitution to 'mean' something that wasnt originally intended has many negative and dangerous consequences: First, it undermines the rule of law, since the 'law' is not longer what is actually written or intended, but is possible constructible from the whims of a judge with enough creative imagination. This is a TERRIBLE blow to our REAL FREEDOMS; if they can invent rights, they can also invent excuse to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS. Second, it undermines democracy, since now laws are changed not by legislatures, but by judges; we see how is has harmed the creation of possibly reasonable abortion policies by tying them to an incorrect and fraudulent constitutional opinion. Third - and we are seeing it now - because laws can be 'changed' by changing judges, the courts become politicized. The borking of Charles Pickering over his pro-life views is part of the bargain.
In reality, legislatures should be deciding the balance between maternal rights, medical issues, and the unbrons right-to-life. Or if we make it a constitutional issue, make it explicit. As Scalia said, the consitution has neither a right to abortion no an explicit right to life for the preborn.
Read "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork, a great intro to Constitutional Law issue for the layman.
A person is a human being. The unborn are human beings. I don't see much wiggle room there. If they meant citizens, they would have said citizens.
However, I agree that Congress should make it clear that the unborn are persons re, the constitution. At the March for Life, President Bush expressed that same opinion.
Have you removed gall bladders? Performed a surgical operation without a license? Do it and you can get arrested and thrown in jail.
The Government has no right to prevent a person from going to see a chiropractitioner. A person has a right to see a quack.
NO!!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! You do NOT have the right to be cured by someone who is not a licensed Doctor! The State laws forbid it. Texas statute law
It is here .. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/oc/oc016500.html#oc021.165.159 " a) A person commits an offense if the person practices medicine without complying with the registration requirements imposed by this subtitle. "
BTW, chiropractors are also regulated ... but you knew that right??? http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/oc/oc020100toc.html
If you outlawed abortion as a "medical procedure", you wouldn't be stopping abortion. What you need to do is pass a law that makes an abortionist a murderer, rather than outlawing a medical procedure, if you want to limit abortions ..
Wrong again. It is sufficient to make this an unlawful act by anyone, licensed or unlicensed to practice medicine. In the past it was treated as lessor offense than murder. Certainly the partial-birth abortion band meets any objection you might have on this matter.
I'm sorry, but you've been wrong about the Constitution, now about state law too.
Should the federal government intervene if a state allows the euthanizing of people over who are on feeding tubes (umbilical cords) without their informed consent and/or due process?
That's right, and because the Constitution is silent, it's up to the states to decide when life begins. The Roe v. Wade ruling is therefore a violation of the Constitution.
The only philosophy to have, consistent with the Constitution, is to say that life begins at independence: when it doesn't need another's body to sustain itself. I'm not reading anything into the IVth amendment but what it says. That's exactly Scalia's doctrine. - don't twist it by talking about this or that original intent. It says what it says and ought not be twisted. People have a right to be secure in their persons.. against unreasonable searches and seizures. Perhaps you think it's reasonable for a rapist to seize the body of another person, and impregnate it with his germ, and have the state assist that rapist's germ in coming to term, by insuring the contination of the seizure.
I don't.
The 14th said "persons" and by that meant human beings who were born. Reread Scalia's comments in the article. If you go by strict interpretation and original intent, it is clear they meant born human beings. eg. we dont count preborn in census numbers.
However, I agree that Congress should make it clear that the unborn are persons re, the constitution. At the March for Life, President Bush expressed that same opinion.
Exactly, it's all about winning over the hearts and minds of the American people, and Scalia's one of the best I know in impacting that second category.
FReegards...MUD
The federal government can enforce the 5th Amendment due process clause against a State, to protect persons, so the answer to your question is, if it's without due process, yes. But what do you mean by "without due process"?
That's an extremely vague term, "due process", and I have seen it twisted. Scalia probably hates it, as do I.
If the State acts with "due process", then the answer to your question is no.
A State can allow a doctor to perform an abortion, say in the case of rape, and it will be acting with "due process", as far as I'm concerned. Due process means you considered the mother's and the child's 4th & 13th and 5th Amendment constitutional rights respectively, and found that the former outweighed the latter, early in the term. What do you think due process is? I think it implies that a law was passed or not passed in accordance with the State's or US Constitution.
No man or woman can use his or her God given freedom to take away the freedom of another because that freedom was not ours to take away. <The foundation of what is justice.
NO!!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! You do NOT have the right to be cured by someone who is not a licensed Doctor! The State laws forbid it. Texas statute law
I don't live in Texas. I suppose some States are more totalitarian than others. I guess a State can outlaw picking your nose, if it wants to.
A person has a freedom to associate with friends of her choosing. One of them might be a doctor who offers to do an abortion in the privacy of her home. Your state can't stop that, even though there might be a law against it. If they are careful, they would leave the cops no 'probable cause'. You then wouldn't be able to insure that a rapist's germ came to term, if that was a case of rape. Would it bother you if that happened?
We agree on this. Roe v. Wade is wrong.
The only philosophy to have, consistent with the Constitution, is to say that life begins at independence:
This on the other hand is highly arguable ... you can beleive as I do that life begins when biology says it beings - conception - and still be consistent with the constitution. You can also hold your view on when life begins. You can *also* recognize that life confers some rights but not all rights. Since you also agree that Roe v. Wade is wrong, the right place to decide the extent that abortion should be legalized or forbidden, and the balance of the rights in this arean, is in state legislatures.
... when it doesn't need another's body to sustain itself. Actually we all need another's body to sustain ourselves for long periods of life. Kids are not really independent until they get a job. I frankly dont see how this particular rule is either (a) illuminating, (b) helps define the law better, or (c) consistent with our moral sensibilities of the matter. In other words, it seems as arbitrary as either the "life begins at birth" or the "life begins at conception" views of the matter. IMHO, all 3 views are consistent with the Constution AS WRITTEN.
I'm not reading anything into the IVth amendment but what it says. I emphatically disagree, obviously. The 4th says: " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
You are calling the normal and natural state of pregnancy a "seizure" in the sense used here in the 4th. That is absurd! Seizures were meant to describe GOVERNMENTAL takings, not natural events like pregnancy. It is an abominable over-reach, and let me tell you, if it was even close to being a possible argument, the Roe v. Wade team would have used it. They didnt. They relied on the 14th primarily and the Griswold decision. Using your logic, the State *could* force a woman to complete her pregnancy, if some judge simply ordered a 'warrant' to seize ... what, the womb?!??!? Since we also have right to be secure in our houses, too, then presumably a lawful act that forced us to live up to our responsibilities wrt our houses but restricted our freedom would also by your logic be unconstitutional. in other words, a tornado that flattened our house would be unconstituional?!? or maybe it would be unconstitutional to be required to pay debts on a car damaged by hailstorms?!? The silliness could explode if you call natural events unlawful "seizures".
That's exactly Scalia's doctrine. - don't twist it by talking about this or that original intent. It says what it says and ought not be twisted. You heard the words but the sense hasnt sunk in. You are seeing what you want to see.
Perhaps you think it's reasonable for a rapist to seize the body of another person, and impregnate it with his germ, and have the state assist that rapist's germ in coming to term, by insuring the contination of the seizure. You have now extended your poor grasp of law into a poor grasp of biology. It's a 'sperm' not a 'germ'.
And that is a human being coming to term, not a 'germ'. Big difference. In any case, let's consider put rapes aside, since we have 1+ million abortions out of convenience not due to rapes. As they say, hard cases make bad law, and most "pro-life" politicians accept an exception for rape.
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.