Scalia;s comments: WOW WOW WOW

[Perky]

ERR so to speak.


ORANGE, California (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blasted what he called "judge moralists" and the infusion of politics into judicial appointments Monday after joining law students in a re-enactment of a 100-year-old landmark case.

Speaking before a packed auditorium at Chapman University, Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.

"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," he said.

Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability.

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/30/scalia.re.enactment.a...

This is REALLLLY interesting.

He would seems not to be saying there is no right to right to privacy...but that it is COngress's responsibility not an unelected Scotus to figure it out.

Even more interesting is the how this plays against the Congressional prerogative vis-avis the commerce clause.


THe most fascinating thin to me is that this a week before the Roberts hearing.

It give everyone the right to ask the important questions everyone is dying to know.

[DURHAM D]

1. Perky, you already tried this once. Scalia has been making

this same speech with minor variations for years. It is just clever phrasing and not what you are making out of it.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

2. Link that works:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/30/scalia.re.enactment.ap/index.html

[uppityperson]

3. wow, nice to get some good news today.

Good job

[enigma000]

4. The way I see it

Free men (and women) fought and died for over two centuries so Americans had the right to choose the laws they wished to live under. And these laws were not to be granted from the judicial branch but the legislative branch - the people that the citizens voted into office.

[EC]

16. Oh yes, I can see it now,

laws made according to who has the biggest lobbying firm or loudest voice or the biggest bribe.... That'll work....

[Pepperbelly]

18. but you cannot allow a tyranny of the majority ...

EVERYONE'S rights are to be protected under the Constitution.

And no, the majority does not have the right to deprive a minority of thir rights either.

[EC]

5. This is a States issues argument

the Federalists stance. What did you expect from Scalia? If everything went to states rights like they would want, we could be seeing a form of slavery back in the south as well as segregation and other not so good things...and as far as I'm concerned the issues he mentioned should be consistant state to state, which leaves it at the Supreme Court...

[Viking12]

12. Except Scalia doesn't care about 'state's rights' when they conflict

his ideology. See his rulings in Bush v. Gore or on Oregon's Marijuana laws for instances.

[Yupster]

21. Segregation maybe, but

slavery was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

[EC]

23. I thinking more like many of our restaurants

that bring nice young ladies over from Greece and the Serb countries and make them pay off their fair, rent, and other "expenses", you know indentured - or the rich that keep house staff, that are from Mexico, South America or even Ireland - doing the same sort of indenturing, but of course that couldn't happen?

[Gloria]

6. Our ambassador to Iraq, however, believes in a "living Constitution"

I think we should bring him home and send Scalia to Iraq....he'd do fine there...

[flpoljunkie]

8. Excellent point, Gloria.

[mtnester]

19. Would he have a problem with don't ask don't tell?

just sayin...

[flpoljunkie]

7. Great, Scalia, leave it to the craven Legislatures and Congress to do what

is right. It has taken incredibly courageous judges to make these decisions Scalia rails against that protect workers' rights, civil rights, and women's reproductive health rights for all Americans--in states, red and blue.

Scalia would throw it all out. The man does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.

[WilliamCash]

9. Freedom from oppression

I have to agree with Scalia in this regard. I'm an attorney myself and I am convinced we need LESS politics and LESS policy decisions from the Court. It's a matter of consistency and knowing what the laws are. I hate appearing before judges who won't follow the law as written but will instead make up their own decisions and then massage the facts to justify it. American citizens deserve the right to live under laws enacted by the Legislature. With the SCOTUS flapping in the wind ideologically, both sides lose. Liberals may love it when Ginsburg et al are in the majority; life is great. But suppose Scalia and Thomas, et al move into the majority. Suddenly life ain't so great anymore for the very same people who were cheering just a little while ago. If the laws can turn on a dime just because a new judge or two get elected, that is not freedom; that is chaos. I would much prefer to live under a system where the Legislature (who were VOTED in by the citizens) enacts laws. If anyone doubts me, please try to explain the SCOTUS's test for when 10 Commandments can be displayed.

[ieoeja]

10. You're right.

Because, of course, the legislator doesn't flap in the wind of public opinion unlike those unelected judges who will hold their position for life regardless of public opinion. They are always changing their views to accomodate public opinion.

And to make matters worse, the precedence for judicial common sense is too young. It only dates back about 1500 years to English common law when they were still Anglish. Whereas the romance notion of "the letter of the law" as followed in places like France dates back several hundred years before that. So screw this new fangled English shit. I mean, it was the French who helped us kick those bastards out of here in the first place. Why do we persist in clinging to traditions we inherited from the English?

:sarcasm:

[Robeson]

15. Thank you Mods!...

...keep up the good work!...:thumbsup:

[Perky]

24. Spot ON!!!

You couild not be more correct.

Policy is decided by those who decide to show up.

If we Democrats would spend as much time trying to understand moderate grass roote sentiments as we do harping on the problems on the right... we would winn back the house and the Presidnect. But sometimes it is far easier to criticize then to lead.

[ieoeja]

11. Gee, ultra rightwing judge espouses ultra rightwing opinions.

What a shock.

[Mz Pip]

13. CA voters approved

the use of medical marijuana. Scalia didn't back us up with his State's Rights argument for that, either.

Where in the Constitution is there a damn thing about marijuana?

Mz Pip
:dem:

[djg21]

14. this is nothing new.

this is precisely why Roe has been under attack since it was decided. In the best of all possible worlds, the Congress, which may be held politically accountable, should be making such decisions.

Roe was nothing more than a gift to the Congress -- it ansolved it from haveing to make unconfortable and potentially unpopular decisions.

What Scalia won't acknowledge is the pragmatic, utilitarian value of Roe. Stated simply, it works.

[MadeinOhio]

17. One thing Scalia has ever said that I agree with....

We don't need right-wing or extremist judges on the bench of the highest court in the land, the rights of abortion should be decided by the PEOPLE not some "unelected" judge.....

I hope he learns the truth..

[djg21]

26. The problem is . . .

that is just what Roe v. Wde does, and what is good for the goose . . .

I've always thought that it would not be the worst thing that could happen if the Court were to overturn Roe. The reality is that most Americans are pro-choice, and despite the rhetoric of those on the right, there would be real perc for those legislatures who oppose the right to choose.

[usregimechange]

20. He is the anti-Christ. Rapture time?

[mandomom]

22. He's just positioning the court to seem not to need another

"moderate" justice. Scalia's so sane that he'll keep Roberts on a short leash.

[leesa]

25. 2000 election. Let's talk infusing politics into judicial decisions.

[jackbourassa]

27. Sometimes I wonder if Scalia is living on the same planet

As normal human beings. He is the most political judge on the Supreme Court.

[yellowcanine]

28. Someone should ask Fat Tony why SCOTUS is needed at all if interpretation

of the Constitution doesn't need to change as society matures. After all, what was "cruel and unusal" punishment at the end of the 18th century may not be the same as it is in the 21st century (aside from Rummy's definition, of course).