Scalia: Abortion Rights Not Constitutional

Supreme Court Justice Defends Positions In TV Debate With ACLU

(AP)  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended some of the opinions he has rendered while on the top U.S. court, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights or the use of race in school admissions.

Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate Sunday 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?"

Scalia's comments come as the Supreme Court this term will hear closely divided issues involving partial-birth abortion and school integration. They are expected to test the conservative impact of the court's two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Scalia, 70, has consistently voted to limit the use of race in school admissions and has called for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion to be overruled. But his influence was often limited by moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast deciding votes on those issues against him.

With O'Connor now retired and Alito succeeding her, Scalia — whom President George W. Bush passed up for chief justice — will have new opportunities to sway his new colleagues and centrist Anthony Kennedy closer to his viewpoints.

During Sunday's debate, Scalia outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted. He reiterated that race has no place in school admissions, a viewpoint that put him on the losing side in 2003.

"The Constitution very clearly forbids discrimination on the basis of race," Scalia said in response to a question by moderator Pete Williams of NBC. "It doesn't seem to me to allow Michigan to say we think it's good to discriminate on the basis of race when you want to make sure everyone is exposed to different backgrounds. We cannot use race as the test of diversity."

Scalia, who marked his 20th anniversary on the court last month, generally finds himself taking the opposite position to the ACLU. Most notably, he wrote a majority 5-4 opinion last term giving police more leeway to enter private homes.

He also unsuccessfully sided with the government in cases where the court struck down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses and declared that the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected al Qaeda members were unconstitutional.

But during Sunday's debate, Scalia noted there were cases in which he and the ACLU agreed. They included rulings upholding flag burning and a 2004 opinion arguing that a U.S. citizen seized in Afghanistan in wartime could challenge his detention as an enemy combatant in U.S. courts.

[lestb35]

I firmly believe in the electoral college.

[usawatchman]

If the US SUPREME COURT is CORRUPT,
then everything else is MAKE BELIEVE that we matter...

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
James B. Veasaw v. Cari M. Domingues,et al.
No: 05-1467

the COURT COVERED UP GOVERNMENT CRIME..!

[pakaal]

Just by labeling issues such as Roe VS Wade as "controversial" instead of reiterating that RVsW is the law of the land, is going beyond his bounds as judge and going into personal opinion territory.

Republicans scream about activist judges constantly - well at least whenever the judge is making a ruling against what they believe, of course. So by the Republicans' own definition, Scalia is an activist judge.

We don't need these kinds of activist judges in the Supreme Court, or anywhere.

[webdepot]

Oh, come on thgdriver, grow up. Jane Fonda is old news. If you want to go that route, Cunninghan, Ney and Foley were big contributors to the Republican cause, as was Enron..
Cunningham, convicted contract fixer;
Ney, confessed "for sale" congressman;
Foley, wanna be (maybe was) pedophile;
Enron, nearly bankrupted several states with price fixed power.
Talk about birds of a feather. Which one are you thgdriver, the crook or the pedophile.

I don't know what kind of crack you are on, but my post said nothing of a new election. Where the heck did you get that?
If the supreme court had been honest and allowed the recount, Gore would have carried Florida; end of point.
The 2004 election has nothing to do with the 2000 election. If Bush had lost in 2000, he probably wouldn't have had a chance at running in 2004.

I'm also well aware of the electoral college system. what the h_ll does that have to do with Gore actually winning Florida. The popular vote in 2000 showed Bush was NOT the people's choice. The fact we have a quirk in our system that allows the most popular vote recipient to still loose is something we've had to live with. It should be changed from a winner take all to an apportioned system such as two of the 50 states already have.

Oh, and by the way... if Gore had been declared the winner in Florida (as he should have been), he would have had the electoral vote too.

It's nice to see you agree with me though, that the court APPOINTED a president.

[thgdriver]

I found it very interesting to see actress Jane Fonda was a very large donor to the AL Gore recount fund.(100,000.00)

After sitting and posing on that anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam, and a Gore supporter, well the old saying---birds of a feather---.

[thgdriver]

You either decided to ignore my posts or you don't want to face the facts.

You are trying to tell me that had they decided in Gores favor, you would still have been unhappy and still wanted a new election??? Bull@stt!!!

You cant sell that to me today or any day.

You are not unhappy that the court made a decision and appointed a President, you are still "crying" 6 years later, because Gore was a loser in court and it was his idea to go that rute!!

Our elections are decided by the Electorial Collage and not by popular vote. That also is a "fact" you want to ignore!!

In 2004 President Bush won the "Electorial Collage vote" and the "POPULAR" vote! Look it up yourself.

I hope and I pray every day that the Dems. trot out Mrs. Clinton in 2008, it will mean 4 more years of the GOP for sure!

[webdepot]

thgdriver and all the other right wing wackos;

After the statute ran out on saving all the ballots from the 2000 election, no fewer than 4 different groups proceeded to do a manual recount of all the ballots from the state.. 3 of those recounts gave a clear win to Gore... the fourth was inconclusive.. So, tell me again why Gore should not have proceeded the way he did.. Tell me again that the Supreme court did not, in effect, appoint Bush president by their actions.
When the election came down to a single state to determine the president, and that state was run by the brother of one of the candidates, the Supreme Court should have been at the forefront of demanding a total recount.
Did Bush win the popular vote?... NO
Did Bush win Florida? NO
Did the Supreme Court cut off the only avenue to verify the true winner? YES
Was the Florida election rigged? apparently so judging by the recount done after the fact..

It is so like the right wing sheeple to go off half cocked with their accusations and their attempts to deride anything resembling truth.

[thgdriver]

When the Attorney General of FLA. certified the election in FLA., and named President Bush the winner in FLA., It was Gore that went to court, thats the facts.

[thgdriver]

oleander8 and all the other Gore/losermen;

As I recall, it was Gore that contested a clean election, It was Gore that wanted a recount, it was Gore who went to court to get the election decided in his favor, It was Gore that the court deceided was a loser.
Gore asked for a courts decision and Gore got it, he did not get what he wanted, and it seems neither did you!. Boo hoo hoo hoo!!

That was 6 years ago, stop whining and move on!

[agnim]

Optimas2

"Assuming, arguendo, that the Constitution is flawed, how is it the role of the Court--or Scalia--to repair it?"

That 'repair' is done all the time, Optimas.
Why do you think that there is rarely a unanimous vote out of the Supreme Court?

Judges offer 'repairing' OPINIONS based on sound, virtuous and patriotic reasoning (some times at least) to reflect the times, for which the founding fathers did not take into account when they created the racist constitution.

As has been pointed out by another poster, ACTIVIST JUDGE, Scalia himself, helped to select his favorite politician as President in 2000, even though such a selective process by the Supreme Courte IS NOT part of our Constitution.
Scalia used his 'repair' kit then in 2000.

Scalia could use his 'repair' kit to also help remove the stench of racism from the constitution and the nation by handing down well reasoned and patriotic decisions that would be in the best interest of a progressive nation.

And yes, those opinions of Scalia and the others CAN BE RACE-BASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIGHTING THE RACE-BASED CONSTITUTION, which the founding fathers allowed to come into existence and institutionalized racism to this day.

[bellal-2009]

Scalia is hardly an activist judge. Isn't he a total traditionalist (is that what they call it?)

[bellal-2009]

mjv2944, Yea, really he's probably one of the few but he's been involved in public service in our state his whole life starting as a police officer. So far he's proven to be honest I'm sure the longer he's in Wash the less likely that'll be.

[gentryfunk-2009]

Writing as a Democrat, I believe that regardless of the political party in control, we are still a divided country. Whether we want to blame Bush for that divisiveness or someone else, the fact is that many people are angry for a wide variety of reasons. From my perspective, it is the hypocrisy of many politicians and religious leaders that have pushed us over the edge as a nation. We struggle to find meaning and our leaders are struggling to fill their wallets and/or their pants.

[mjv2944]

bellall

A good honest man and he's a politician? This guys got you bullsh*tted. He has his share of skeletons, they just haven't been found just. I'm not voting for a single incumbent.

[pakaal]

Boy, things are going to get bad if activist judges like Scalia start making legal decisions for all of us based on their own personal beliefs. Even more frightening is that the Supreme Court Judges are nigh-on impossible to unseat. Can we start a referendum for term limits on the Supreme Court?

[bellal-2009]

I intend to vote Rep. against our Dem Senator who has been lamer than lame and a rampant spender. I would hve supported her but she's been completely ineffective. I do support and will continue to support our other Dem. senator. I'll also vote Republican for incumbent House Rep. who is a good honest man.

[oleander8]

Justice Scalia should look to cleanup his own house first. Where in the Constitution does it say that the President of the United States can be APPOINTED by the supreme court?

[bellal-2009]

Ozilot, that was ridiculous.

[pixelslinger]

Five word sound-bites as a measure of persuasion are idiotic. Stay the course. Vote Republican?
Change the course. Vote Democrat?

Seriously? Is that an actual argument or just mindless drivel that the scope of politics must be distilled to in order to attract voters? Cound on the fact that independants, moderates, and centrists require a little more than two sentances when we are the only ones that acknowledge that BOTH parties are way off track

[tejasdemo]

Change the course. Vote Democratic