Scalia is nuts

[Theophorus]

"The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent."

"Take the abortion issue," he said. "Whichever side wins, in the courts, the other side feels cheated. I mean, you know, there's something to be said for both sides."

"The court could have said, 'No, thank you.' The court have said, you know, 'There is nothing in the Constitution on the abortion issue for either side,'" Scalia said. "It could have said the same thing about suicide, it could have said the same thing about ... you know, all the social issues the courts are now taking."





Scalia has no idea what the courts purpose is!!! Scary.... He condemns the press and the courts for working as a balance. This "consrvative" judge says there are two sides to the abortion issue and basically abdicates having to take a moral or legal stance on the issue.

How weak and spineless is that?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-21-20-02-29

 

[GoSeminoles!]

He hasn't time to think. He's too busy accepting largesse from lobbyists -- which is illegal for federal judges, except Supreme Court judges.

 

[Heiroglyph]

He seems reasonable to me. The courts are overstepping their authority on alot of matters, making themselves into politicians, thus the courts should be elected, not appointed.

 

[Polycarp1]

Ouch! There are a number of reasons I dislike Scalia as a jurist, but this is not one of them.

I'm quite confident that the moderators will not want a debate about the morality of abortion in N&CE, and I'll do my level best to avoid one.

But let me point out that the law is, and properly should be, distinct from moral standards, though giving proper place to them.

For example, you and I, Theophorus, believe that the chaliceful of wine consecrated by a properly ordained priest becomes the Holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is properly received in devout humility in communion with Him. An equally sincere Protestant might believe that any consumption of alcohol is immoral and that no such thing happens at communion, and be morally opposed to our receiving communion wine. For obvious reasons, the law needs to stay neutral as regards our differing beliefs.

Now, without arguing one side or the other, take the following premises: (1) The point at which human personhood is taken on by the sperm-and-egg result of human sexual intercourse is subject to debate. Arguments have been made that it is at the instant of fertilization, at the point of lodgment in the uterine wall, at the point at which it becomes distinctly human, at the time of "quickening," and even at birth. (2) The constitution defines "citizen" as being bestowed by birth or naturalization (14th Amendment) -- the unborn are not citizens; (3) A human being has the freedom to do with his or her own body what the law does not prohibit. For example, if a fetus could be successfully transplanted from one woman to another, the termination of the first woman's pregnancy would not ipso facto be a crime, even if abortion were illegal.

Now, Scalia is asserting that subverting the law to the service of social issues is in his mind wrong. Regardless of whose social issues they are. The same principle as causes him to see two sides to the abortion question means he sees two sides to the gay marriage question -- and the arguments are similar. Each side sees its own moral standards as appropriately written into law.

My belief about whether or not the termination of a pregnancy is sinful is not what should prevail under law. Just as my belief about what constitutes a valid marriage is likewise not. The issues are what rights are clearly guaranteed under the Constitution, and what powers the Federal or state governments have to regulate what are not guaranteed rights. Scalia is quite clear on his own legal philosophy. I disagree with the one he holds -- but he's acting with propriety as a judge in taking the stance he does.

 

[Heiroglyph]

Its very odd that in our system of law, if I kill a woman who is pregnant Id be charged with two murders for killing her and her "baby" but if the mo ther decides to kill her own "fetus" that is perfectly acceptable. Do people that support the right to choose also support charging someone with double homicides for killing a mother and her baby? That is hypocritical.

 

[Dale]

Heiroglyph:
"The courts are overstepping their authority on alot of matters, making themselves into politicians, thus the courts should be elected, not appointed."

Electing judges is not an answer. If it were our state courts would be working fine and they are not.

Where I live in Florida state judges are elected and I don't remember any instance of two lawyers running for a judgeship.

In Georgia, a top political science professor told us that in the history of the state there was no example of two people running for a judicial position.

That's how "election" of judges works. The Bar Association decides who they want and that person runs. If any other lawyer tried to run, they would lose and they would have to leave the county, unable to practice. So called election of judges in practice means that they are elected by the Bar Association, by the other lawyers. The public never has a choice.

 

[bammertheblue]

Its very odd that in our system of law, if I kill a woman who is pregnant Id be charged with two murders for killing her and her "baby" but if the mo ther decides to kill her own "fetus" that is perfectly acceptable. Do people that support the right to choose also support charging someone with double homicides for killing a mother and her baby? That is hypocritical.

I might, after a certain point (fetal viability, maybe), but I don't exactly support the right to abortion at that point except for the health of the mother or abnormalities of the fetus. Women don't get late-term abortions just for fun.
But this is probably not the place to talk about this either.

 

[burrow_owl]

Scalia's position, that judges should only rule based on what can be supported with the Constitution, is utterly uncontroversial. While virtually everyone agrees with that banality, we disagree on what can and can't be supported with the Constitution. The problem for a textual absolutist like Scalia - and what makes his theory of adjudication close to if not downright incoherent - is that the Constitution wasn't passed with a manual. Any theory of adjudication will necessarily rely on an extra-constitutional theory of politics and the role of courts.

 

[Theophorus]

Now, Scalia is asserting that subverting the law to the service of social issues is in his mind wrong. Regardless of whose social issues they are. The same principle as causes him to see two sides to the abortion question means he sees two sides to the gay marriage question -- and the arguments are similar. Each side sees its own moral standards as appropriately written into law.

My belief about whether or not the termination of a pregnancy is sinful is not what should prevail under law. Just as my belief about what constitutes a valid marriage is likewise not. The issues are what rights are clearly guaranteed under the Constitution, and what powers the Federal or state governments have to regulate what are not guaranteed rights. Scalia is quite clear on his own legal philosophy. I disagree with the one he holds -- but he's acting with propriety as a judge in taking the stance he does.

Socail issues are more than that when they take the form of written Law. As is the case for abortion and same sex marriage. And interpreting and applying the law is the courts business.

I said legal or moral stance in the OP. But one cannot say that moral views, and the mores of society have no place in court. Just ask Dr. Kevorkian.

 

[SimplyMe]

Heiroglyph:
"The courts are overstepping their authority on alot of matters, making themselves into politicians, thus the courts should be elected, not appointed."

Electing judges is not an answer. If it were our state courts would be working fine and they are not.

Where I live in Florida state judges are elected and I don't remember any instance of two lawyers running for a judgeship.

In Georgia, a top political science professor told us that in the history of the state there was no example of two people running for a judicial position.

That's how "election" of judges works. The Bar Association decides who they want and that person runs. If any other lawyer tried to run, they would lose and they would have to leave the county, unable to practice. So called election of judges in practice means that they are elected by the Bar Association, by the other lawyers. The public never has a choice.

Actually, in Texas judges actually run as part of the party system so multiple candidates compete for a single judge position. The problem is that you end up with judges that appear to rule in favor of those that contribute to their campaign. Trust me, electing judges is not the answer.