Scalia Rails Against the 'Judge-Moralist'

[deadparrot]

BOSTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia railed against the era of the "judge-moralist," saying judges are no better qualified than "Joe Sixpack" to decide moral questions such as abortion and gay marriage.

"Anyone who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check," he said during a speech to New England School of Law students and faculty at a Law Day banquet on Wednesday night.

The 70-year-old justice said the public, through elected legislatures — not the courts — should decide watershed questions such as the legality of abortion.

Scalia decried his own court's recent overturning of a state anti-sodomy law, joking that he personally believes "sexual orgies eliminate tension and ought to be encouraged," but said a panel of judges is not inherently qualified to determine the morality of such behavior.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_speech

[muntrv]

1. Didn't seem to think that

during Bush v Gore in 2000.

[Canuckistanian]

2. But judges are forced to be the "moralists"

Hate to agree with him but he's right. These matters should be settled in legislative chambers, not courtrooms.

The problem is, polititicans won't touch these issues with a 29-foot pole.

[anotherdrew]

4. I'm begining to think they should all be limited to one term only

I know it's problematic but so is the current non-working system.

[Warpy]

5. Oh, but they do touch them. Frequently.

All you have to do is look at South Dakota and several other wingnut dominated states to figure that one out.

The court is necessary to strike these laws down when they are unconstitutional. Since our right to autonomy is part and parcel of that document, his duty is clear. He must strike down laws that force religious opinion onto all the people.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Only recently, though

When Roe was being decided, it was because it was never discussed in any legislature.

[tabasco]

7. Scalia's not making any earth-shattering statement here.

You're right too. Congress often passes vague and incomplete legislation. They leave it up to the courts to decide what the hell it means.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Exactly.

But now they're screaming about 'activist judges' when all they're doing is to try and interpret the vague laws as they apply to the Constitution.

[liberal43110]

8. Nope, it's the constitution

Why do you say that issues like abortion and gay marriage should only be decided by legislatures?

The courts--especially the Supreme court--decide whether something is constitutional. If a legislative body passes a law, it is subject to judicial review. It's called checks and balances.

[mondo joe]

9. You needn't agree. Judges don't decide morality, but constitutionality.

That's what they're SUPPOSED to do anyway.

[still_one]

3. and neither are the state legislatures

[C_U_L8R]

6. ooooohhhhh bullshit

but i guess this does indeed confirm that Scalia is an amoralist

[bemildred]

10. It seems a little early for him to be senile.

But it's hard to figure out what he thinks judges do, if its not to arbitrate what is right and wrong when the legislature cannot or will not of should not decide. Maybe this is just a recasting of the "activist judges" bullshit, like they are supposed to be potted plants or something.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

13. And if the legality of slavery had been determined that way...

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

14. Just decide the LEGAL questions, jackass

Put your morals in your pocket and decide based on the Constitution and equality and privacy, that's what you're paid to do.

[TaleWgnDg]

15. What a complete and utter ass is Antonin Scalia! Indeed.

.

What a complete and utter ass is Antonin Scalia! Indeed. Of course, cases should not be decided on one's personal (subjective) "morality!"

WTF? This is news?

No. It's law school, first semester, first week, con law. What a jackass!

Cases are not decided in courts-of-law upon a subjective standard (which "morality" is). Instead, cases in courts-of-law are decided upon an objective standard of law, period.

Abortion, in law, is not a "moral" issue as Pope Antonin Scalia's religion dictates that it is. Nor is "gay marriage" (in law) a "moral" issue as, again, Pope Scalia's religious tenets dictate that it is. The ass. Scalia is blatantly twisting law on its head and applying his own subjective "moral" and religious views. Abortion's Roe v. Wade and its progeny were decided upon the 14th amendment's due process clause and on the right to privacy as well as upon other individual rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Morality had squat to do with the Roe SCOTUS opinion.

And, as for "gay marriage," it, too, has been decided upon the Massachusetts constitution's due process clause and equal protection clause, not on "morality" at all! Again, what an ass is Scalia.

The sodomy law of which Scalia waxes and whines about is Lawrence v. Texas, Texas anti-sodomy criminal laws aimed at homosexuals wherein two gays were "caught" in the act in their own bedroom behind closed doors by an uninvited cop, then suffered criminal sanctions. Lawrence was a 14th amendment due process clause and liberty clause case. Again, not upon "morality" grounds as the ass alleges!

Geez Louise!

I am appalled that Scalia believes that he can "lecture" at (read: talk down to) a Massachusetts law school audience (here, the New England School of Law in downtown Boston) and get away with such misinterpretation, misinformation, and self-pontifications as he whelps and whelps, on and on and on . . . what an ass! Damn, I wish I were there in the audience! I'll bet he was hooted by the student body and by the facility.

Scalia fails to understand the fundamental premise of the Bill of Rights, and as a result, of the founding fathers. The basic premise of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority against the majority as well as to protect the individual against the government. And, that courts-of-law are a minority right of last resort, not the majority in legislative bodies. Again, what a self-righteous pontificating ass is he! All hail Pope Antonin Scalia!



Scalia is showing his age, his crimped mind,
as well as his fixation upon reversing constitutional individual rights
gained over the past century from SCOTUS.

However, Scalia fills the bill when it comes to George Walker Bush's mandate:



______________________________________________

edited to add:

"Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the (Massachusetts) Supreme Judicial Court, and author of the controversial decision that legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, was scheduled to sit at the head table with Scalia, but was absent due to illness."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/15/scalia_critical_of/

Ha ha ha, good for Justice Margaret Marshall (and, I hope she gets well very quickly)!
.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. What does Tony have to say...

...about Judges choosing who gets to be President of the United States? Are they "inherently qualified" to do that, Tony?