I have no doubt that Scalia would rule in favor of the original intent of laws whenever it allowed. He can be against abortion and not interpret some things in a “pro-God” way and still be following God. This is what Joseph did with Pharaoh's land. Pharaoh was anything but a man who followed God, leading a land of idol worshipers. Joseph was compelled by God to help this ungodly country in a unique way. Joseph didn't make Pharaoh give all the country's money to God's people, or even attempt to do so, with his power. Wouldn't a godly man use the government to help God's people survive, rather than idol worshipers? Think about it.
If the Catholic church said that “1 + 1 = 3” and a teacher was hired to teach “1 + 1 = 2”, then he must teach that.
I have no problems with a man of God saying he doesn't use the Bible or the Catholic church's teaching to interpret cases. It must be down to original intent or literal interpretation, in the end.
Scalia is not the enemy. Stupid people who don't know their bibles and can't understand sense are.
This is the dumbest statement I have ever seen in print, outside of the so called Penumbra the court finds to justify killing babies.
From the mid-1800's until 1967, most, and then finally all the states of the US banned criminal abortion in their law codes. In no case was there ever a prosecution for natural miscarriage, even if the mother were arguably negligent (e.g. chronic drunkenness during pregnancy.)
You forget that mens rea -- the Latin term for "guilty mind" -- is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. This is absent in any case where miscarriage results from anything except an abortive attempt.
Furthermore, law enforcement requires the willingness of a prosecutor to prosecute. No prosecutor --- and I mean none of them --- wants to investigate miscarriages. In the real world, it's simply an impossibility. And that evaluation is based on U.S. experience for over 100 years.
If the Catholic church said that “1 + 1 = 3” and a teacher was hired to teach “1 + 1 = 2”, then he must teach that. I have no problems with a man of God saying he doesn't use the Bible or the Catholic church's teaching to interpret cases."
This is not a situation where the Catholic Church or the Bible are needed to establish by supernatural revelation that child is a human being, whether that child has been born or is in the womb traveling towards birth. It is not a matter of "revelation" or "religious authority" because the fact is well-attested-to by the rapidly developing sciences of embryology and perinatology.
It is not unreasonable to demand that the law conform to the advances of scientific knowledge.