The following comes from an October 29 SF Gate article by Bob Egelko:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, widely viewed as the leader of the court’s dominant conservative bloc, told law students at Santa Clara University on Wednesday that he’s actually a dissident on a liberal court, one whose prevailing view threatens “the destruction of our democratic system.”
…
Scalia said the court’s promotion of what he derisively called the “living Constitution” began in the 1920s, when justices interpreted the guarantee of due process of law to protect fundamental rights not mentioned in the constitutional text.
The rulings started with relatively non-controversial rights, like the right to educate one’s children, but soon headed down a “slippery slope,” Scalia said. “At the bottom of that slope, I can’t imagine how you can go any further, is the right to same-sex marriage.”
“Do you think the American people would ever have ratified” the Constitution if they had been told “the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is?” Scalia asked. Referring to the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion and the 1992 decision that barred states from placing an: “undue burden” on abortion rights, he said, “They vote on the basis of what they feel.”
…
Yes they would have voted to ratify the Constitution. Marbury v Madison, the case that established that fact, was only a few years after ratification, and nobody except Scalia has a problem with the way it was decided.
YFC, Justice Scalia is a true American hero! And a true hero also, of our Church! Please read your history! America was never founded on selfish, immoral, “do as you feel,” immature hedonism!
Linda Marie, Is there anyone you disagree with that you consider mature?
Justice Scalia is a true hero! Bless him!
So he believes that we have no rights that are not given us in the Constitution?
I don’t think that is what the founding fathers had in mind?
Oh, please, there is no right to put a bean up ones nose or an ice pick in ones ear or any other misuse of the body and call it discrimination if others disagree and refuse to take part in it and give their approval. Stop playing the victim.
Playing the victim? HUH? The victim of what? What does this have to do with discrimination?
He is complaining about “justices interpret[ing] the guarantee of due process of law to protect fundamental rights not mentioned in the constitutional text.”
So is he saying that he believes we have no rights unless the constitution specifically guarantees them?
Anonymous, you ask that question because you have no common sense.
Anne T, – It was a simple question. You apparently feel threatened by it.
Dear Anne T, Bob One, and Anonymous:
Thanks for this lively discussion. It is plainly evident that there are rights not enumerated that are reserved to “the people”, as the text of the Ninth Amendment, part of the original Bill of Rights, makes quite clear.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So it is not about beans, common sense, or eve strict constructionism. The Declaration of independence says we formed our own country, among other things, the pursuit of happiness.
Anon, “Strict Constructionist” believe that the Constitution is what it says it is and does not protect anything not in the Constitution. They also tend to be very much against current use, 100 years, of the reserved clause. In other words they support the idea that the States have most of the rights, except those reserved for the Federal government, not the other way around. So the answer to your question is Yes.
Thank you, Bob One.
Got a lot of hostility asking for clarification on that. ( I think one lady might have accused me of sticking things where they don’t belong. I doubt she was really talking about beans in noses.)
Thank you for your courtesy and respect.
Anonymous, the simple fact, Constitution or no Constitution, no one has the right to force someone to take part in or pay for something that is against Natural Law. We all know this President and many in his administration hate Natural Law .and are trying to get rid of it, and your defending so-called same-sex marriage is approving of people misusing their bodies by sodomy and approving of forcing those of us who are against it to have to pay for and get involved in the approval of it. End of discussion.
Anne T., I have never defended same-sex marriage. I have not done the other things you falsely accuse me of.
Obviously you are reading something into a simple question.
I am fine with ending the discussion because it has not been a discussion. You never answered the question.
Anonymous, if I have falsely accused you, you only have yourself to blame as people on here have asked the different anonymouses (or church mice if you prefer) to please use a name, penname or number to avoid confusion. You have chosen not to do so, so take your licking like a man.
No, it’s not my fault. The fault and the sin is yours.
Anne T. What nonsense. If you falsely accuse someone you should apologize, not blame it on your victim.
I apologize, Anonymous, for the last sentence in my post to you you at 7:55 pm., but you must understand that there are Anonymouses coming on here that have defended sodomy and so-called same-sex marriages, and we have no way of telling the difference, except by the questions asked or statements made.
Anonymous, I had apologized for my last sentence on November 12 at 7:55 pm, but it did not go through. As far as what I said before I feet you question caused unfair doubts about Justice Scalia believing in certain rights, and that made me angry as many come on here anonymously and defend the indefensible such as so-called same-sex marriage.
The Anonymous post on here on November 13 at 9:34 am was mine but done unintentionally. From now on I will not post nor answer questions from those who deliberately post anonymously. It is too confusing.
AnneT. You did nothing to apologize for here. God bless you for speaking clearly and owning your statements. Would that others could be as consistent and manful in their communications.
Sadly, however, obfuscating, mincing, backpedaling and political soft-speak has become the norm. That said, I’d encourage you to respond to Anonymous in future however you deem fit. Removing your strident voice from the conversation -so as to not counter the obvious strategy of the drive-by anonymous shooter – is, in itself, a disgusting attempt to paint others as sinful while seeking to promote sin and tepidity.
Those who do not want to be confusing or cause confusion understand that posting anonymously comes with hazards – that of being…
…confused with another.
Post on, Anne T. Catholics need strength. They need to hear from those unafraid of identifying themselves. They need the Truth, even if feelings get hurt sometimes. That’s part of life and a GREAT lesson in and of itself.
Post on!
God bless!
Scalia is asserting that the Supreme Court should deal with the United States Constitution and only that. The God-given natural rights we have are not a part of the legal system, and should not be used by the Supreme Court to invent Constitutional Rights because “it seems right” or they fit their liberal mindsets.
But in no case is there a right to do wrong, such as killing for convenience.
Anonymous— just what “rights,” are you so worried about? You do not sound normal! The Constitution does not exist, just to protect any old silly idea, of someone’s “rights!” It is very intelligent, and provides a solid foundation, for our Nation!
How about the right to life?
How about the right to know who one’s biological parents are?
He mentioned the right to education.
Do you not know about the Human Life Amendment?
It is plainly evident that there are rights not enumerated that are reserved to “the people”, as the text of the Ninth Amendment, part of the original Bill of Rights, makes quite clear.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So it is not about silly ideas, beans, common sense, or even strict constructionism. The Declaration of independence says we formed our own country, among other things, for the pursuit of happiness.
The radical Homosex Trolls here really hate Justice Scalia – and His Marvelous and Insightful Decisions & Dissents are regularly Censored in Law School (along with those who would support them) – regardless of which side he is on.
The’ legal reporter’ for the Chronicle (‘bogus bob Egelko) is as biased against Scalia as any law professor at Santa Clara or USF (or Troll here)…
And all law students there know that even agreeing with a Sitting Justice writing in the Majority, is enough to ruin grades, a career and much much more.
Been there and saw that show myself. As for ‘ruin’ – if the Abomination is a ‘success’ then that term and ruin have become the opposite of what they used to be defined as…
Kind of like being…
Academic Censorship as a Political Weapon
https://dailysignal.com/2015/03/26/demint-at-yale-academic-censorship-as-a-political-weapon/?
Recently, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) released a report determining that most U.S. colleges now violate free speech rights.
Senator Jim De-Mint deconstructs the issue.
I am so sorry, that Obama and his diabolic people are out busy trying to destroy religion, and the traditional American home and family, based on the sacredness of Marriage between one man and one woman! Children are suffering, and their future is in chaos! Those in religious groups trying to do great good for others, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, are now in great peril! America should be supporting these excellent churches and religious groups, and should be firmly upholding the American traditional Marriage and Family! Motherhood– and Fatherhood– should always be held as SACRED– and abortion should be called: MURDER!!– and must be against the law!
Linda Marie, most of the trolls that come on here, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are just plain anarchists. They really do not care at all about what is good and healthy for children and society. They would argue that green is purple, a bear is a lion or a man is a woman just to be annoying.