Scalia Defends Positions in TV Debate

[Federal Farmer]

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

More (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCALIA_ACLU?SITE=MAFAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Still don't know if you're going to get out and vote, or who to vote for? The only reason to do so, and you know what party.

[Timberwolf]

Man o man do I wish I could've watched that!! Scalia is, arguably, the finest Justice to ever sit on the SC. If only we had 8 more like him on the high court, most of our societal ills (based upon judicial activist "law") would disappear overnight.

[cerberus]

Isn't that a bit 'unseemly' for Justices to do? Not that he can't of course, but i thought justices should be above such things. The man's brilliant, his; his opinions should speak for themselves.

[Timberwolf]

If it weren't for venues such as that, some would never hear him speak. The general populace NEEDS to hear what this man has to say.

[Federal Farmer]

I don't think it unseemly for a Supreme Justice to participate in a public debate and be put on the spot more than they would be while hearing a case being argued before the Court;during arguments there is perhaps too much rear kissing out of decorum. In a debate we can see a little more of just how intelligent and quick witted a Justice is or is not.

What I do find wrong is when earlier this year Ginsburg used her speech before the Constitutional Court of South Africa as a soapbox to criticize Congress for their trying to stop Justices from citing foreign laws and rulings in US Supreme Court decisions. Keep the argument in-house.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I watched the debate. Actually, Scalia, in my opinion, did a lousy job of defending the Constitution, which is what we're really talking about here. While his opponent, as ACLU sophists are want, religiously prefaced each of her arguments in favor of this or that outcome as the supposed leftist approach of granting an ever-increasing degree of equality and freedom, Scalia typically responded by talking about the more technical aspects of legal tradition. Yawn. He failed to compare the actual outcomes of leftist judicial notions against the general principles of individual liberty. In other words, he failed to expose -- which can readily be done -- the fact that the actual outcomes of the leftist judicial agenda empowers the government at the expense of individual liberty.

Scalia's a judge, and a good one, but you need an experienced conservative politician/pundit -- a political street fighter -- to deal with ACLU riffraff.

Or you can go with a judge like Bork or a lawyer like Schlafly. Same thing.

[Federal Farmer]

He failed to compare the actual outcomes of leftist judicial notions against the general principles of individual liberty. In other words, he failed to expose -- which can readily be done -- the fact that the actual outcomes of the leftist judicial agenda empowers the government at the expense of individual liberty.
"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?"
I don't have television so I could not watch it. Judging by this exchange Blue, I'd have to say you call it correctly. Scalia should have called her out on the entire "social justice" vision of the left. Thomas Sowell could have done better.
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."
This however is why I posted the thread. But it won't happen unless, first, we can give Bush the votes should he get another opportunity to appoint a SCOTUS Justice.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I don't have television so I could not watch it. Judging by this exchange, Blue, I'd have to say you call it correctly. Scalia should have called her out on the entire "social justice" vision of the left. Thomas Sowell could have done better.


You got it. Virtually every exchange was more of the same. They played out on TV the same way they read.

Yes. Sowell would have mopped the floor with her.

[Peachdiane]

Ooooo Sowell... now there's a debate I'd love to see!

[Maggie_T]

Isn't that a bit 'unseemly' for Justices to do? Not that he can't of course, but i thought justices should be above such things. The man's brilliant, his; his opinions should speak for themselves.

Mutt, that was SO :lame: Even for you.:rolleyes:

[Rhino]

Still don't know if you're going to get out and vote, or who to vote for? The only reason to do so, and you know what party.'My' candidate supports raising the minimum wage, amongst other liberal mantras. Still, he's better than the alternative, but I'm sick and tired of having to compromise just to keep the other guys out of office. I want a party with the balls to run a candidate who actually supports conservative principles. But where's the motivation for them to do that if we keep voting for them anyway? Aaaarrggghhh!

We need a viable conservative third party.

[Federal Farmer]

'My' candidate supports raising the minimum wage, amongst other liberal mantras. Still, he's better than the alternative, but I'm sick and tired of having to compromise just to keep the other guys out of office. I want a party with the balls to run a candidate who actually supports conservative principles. But where's the motivation for them to do that if we keep voting for them anyway? Aaaarrggghhh!

We need a viable conservative third party.
My mindset precisely. I voted third party in 2004, out of protest to so much that Bush and the Republicans had been and continue to do. But only because I knew I could afford to; between Detroit and the unions, the Reagan Democrats have left the scene, so the numbers were just not there for Bush to take Michigan. Had the numbers been close, I would have voted GOP. And like you say, Aaaarggghhh.

I've had a tough time all this year deciding how I will vote; the only reason I can find to go GOP is that we are close to having the Court we'd like to have, perhaps. Time will tell even on that.

A viable conservative party is needed. I think often of just how we might help bring that about. Ironically, both the Republican and Democratic parties may just be of some succor to that end.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

cerberus:
Isn't that a bit 'unseemly' for Justices to do? Not that he can't of course, but i thought justices should be above such things.

:unsmile: I couldn't care less that this is an activity that justices have traditionally avoided. It's also a tradition for ex-presidents to keep their smelly pieholes shut, rather than criticize the man currently occupying the White House, but that hasn't stopped a couple of liberals from doing exactly that. So, maybe these arcane courtesies should be completely shed. And it's about time we had a conservative with the cajones to speak publicly & frankly about the issues of our day. If the liberals can do it, we should, too.

[Maggie_T]

You tell 'im, Moo! :clap: