Scalia Debates ACLU
Posted on October 15, 2006
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.”
Bingo! Scalia slams them here. To put things in context, he said this after speaking about what he called judicial aristocracy, and how one day the consequences of putting so much power in the hands of nine lawyers might come back to bite them. The news report doesn’t include it, but all Nadine Strossen had to say to this was, “Let’s hope not.” This response was quite revealing if put in the proper context. She was pretty much saying that bad calls are o.k. as long as they go in the direction of the ACLU’s philosphy.
“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. ” (except of course anti-abortion protesters, the unborn, and ACLU board members that disagree with the leadership…addition mine.) 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?”
The ACLU debate comes 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.
The advantage of the debate was in an ACLU friendly environment packed with ACLU members. While Scalia breifly spoke of some ACLU positions he was in agreement with he spoke out clearly and for the most part found himself, as usual, on the opposite side of the ACLU on the issues. He explained his originalist approach to the Constitution and why judicial activism poses dangers to both sides of the political spectrum. Though one wouldn’t know it from the response of the biased crowd, Scalia did a great job of speaking truth to the ACLU’s misguided ways.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Abortion, Activist Judges, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Scalia Debates ACLU”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I’m recording the streaming audio from the C-SPAN archive now, and will listen to it in detail later. Thanks for the heads-up.
Jay: “Strossen countered that such a legal approach would have barred the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education,”
My response:
For belonging to an organization that has so many lawyers, Ms. Strossen showed ignorance of the law. Brown v. The Board of Education overturned a previous Supreme Court case called Plessy v Fergunson, from which a ex slave owning Justice dissented because he stated the U.S. Constitution did not justify prejudice based on race.
If she actually read the U.S. Constitution instead of quoting liberal talking points then she might notice the part that states “in order to form a more perfect union”. I question how allowing the union to be divided along racial lines make it a more perfect union.
The Fourteenth Amendment itself overturned the Supreme Court case known as Dred Scott v. Sandford which was an activist ruling than was part of the cause of the American Civil War. It also put the force of law behind the Civil Rights Acts that were passed by Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 guaranteed Backs the same treatment as Whites in certain public places. In short the separate but equal was just more garbage put out by an activist court.
There have been activist conservative Supreme Courts in the past which tend to favor big business. One such decided the corporation were persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. I don’t remember a corporation being born. Does anyone else. The Slaughterhouse Cases decided that Blacks had more rights than Whites though it seems the idea only applied when it was Whites that were being badly treated by corporations.
http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/10/18/scalia-vs-aclu-president-video/