Scalia Lashes Out At Judicial Activism

[kurth]

Scalia, ACLU Head Face Off in TV Debate
Oct 15 11:19 PM US/Eastern
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday defended some of his Supreme Court opinions, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights and the use of race in school admissions. Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues.

Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, "Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach." "On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment," the Reagan appointee said. "Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution," he said.

Strossen countered that such a legal approach would have barred the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools. "There are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from any minority, no matter how small or unpopular that minority might be," she said. "And who is better positioned to represent and defend and be the ultimate backstop for rights of individuals and minorities than those who are not directly accountable in the electoral process _ namely federal judges?" ....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Scalia_ACLU.html

---------------------------------------------------

What an asshole. How about using the equal protection clause to select your own president - and the hell with election results...

[Hosnon]

1. Regardless of his views, he is BSing us and himself if he truly thinks he

is 100% objective in his interpretation of the Constitution.

[MrCoffee]

7. He's not 100% objective, but he is 100% consistent, and i give him credit

unlike Kennedy, who is a massive wanker.

[Viking12]

15. Consistent? Hardly....

See Bush v. Gore (2000) for example. In that decision he used the 14th Amendment in EXACTLY the same way others that he bashes use it. He also waffles on state's rights, if the issue at question is the legalization of drugs or assisted suicide, he's pro federal gov't; if its deregulation of polluters he's pro-state. He's a judicial chameleon.

[MrCoffee]

2. That would be one great debate to witness.

[Coventina]

3. Judicial activism like appointing the POTUS?!?!?!

Suck it, Tony.

Shut your fat face already.

[ThomCat]

4. He's a damned hypocrite!

He's an activist judge, and loves to find new judicial power not strictly defined in the constitution when it suites his Federalist/Neo-conservative/Uber-Catholic positions.
x(

Just come out and state that you're in favor of interpreting the law to suit your own political political and social philosophy, you hypocritical wus!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights

Likewise, nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

[Sherman A1]

8. Therefore those rights are retained by the people as I recall?

Isn't there something about things not mentioned continuing to be held by the citizens and not the government?

[Gabi Hayes]

9. what're you, a wise guy? you know those amendments don't count,

ESPECIALLY those pesky first 10:



Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Sherman A1]

14. Oh, I knew there was something in there

but really, who has time to read the whole thing, I mean there are no pictures or nuthin'.

[depakid]

6. Mr. Judicial activist himself

There are more than ample grounds to impeach him. He's a disgrace to the judiciary- if not humanity.

[Jacobin]

10. yeah. he appointed Bush as president

How much more of an activist can you get?

[MrCoffee]

12. Yawn...there were 7 votes to stop the recount.

[Viking12]

16. Maybe you slept through the 2000 election...

True that a 7-2 majority of justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard, but a 5-4 majority decided that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.

[MrCoffee]

17. maybe you're wrong...7 justices found an equal protection violation

in the recount.

[Viking12]

18. I update my post for accuracy....

Your lack of specificity left room for interpretation.

[Viking12]

19. I update my post for accuracy....

Your lack of specificity left room for interpretation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Based solely on the OP, he's right and she's wrong.

Judges *are* there to uphold the law, and they're *not* there to defend minority rights or anything else, unless it says in the law that they're there to do so.

The ideal judge would be one whose only ethics were professional, who was devoted to enforcing exactly what the law said.

It's not clear, because she's glossing over the point, but it appears to me that Ms Strossen is arguing that judges should sometimes make rulings that aren't supported by the law. That's a very bad idea indeed.

[gratuitous]

13. I read Stossen's comment differently

It appears that Stossen was saying that the rights and the privileges enumerated in the Constitution were to be applied to everyone, not just the folks who had "traditionally" or "historically" been granted rights and privileges. The law might have been interpreted to be applied to just a few (as in Plessy v. Ferguson, the "separate but equal" decision that Brown v. Board of Education overturned), or been applied in real life in a way that the disparate impact of its application favored one group over another, but Stossen seems to be arguing that that in and of itself is insufficient reason for judges to continue interpreting a law in a discriminatory manner. And that, I think, is correct.

As society's sensibilities change, and we recognize unfair treatment that is based on nothing more than old prejudices or hypocrisy, it's up to the courts to move with society (and sometimes ahead of society) in guaranteeing equal treatment under the law.