splitting the difference
By Diogenes (articles ) | August 30, 2005 4:45 PM
In a public address, Justice Antonin Scalia voices his contempt for the notion that federals courts should trump democratic process in settling public issues that hinge on moral convictions:
"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society by unelected judges," he said. ...
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($26,810 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: shrink -
Aug. 30, 2005 7:41 PM ET USA
Scalia is very much spot on in his understanding of current jurisprudence. But it would be of some interest to hear Prof Charles Rice on Scalia's take. For it was Rice throughout the 70s and 80s who argued that a judge must apply natural law morality--a form of value-laden judgment-- even in cases where the legislative branch was in opposition.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Aug. 30, 2005 5:29 PM ET USA
Thank God for Justice Scalia. Finally, some on-target analysis of the insanity of the Senate and House "looking for moderate judges..." to interpret the constitutional text... Amen, Antonin, Amen.
Posted by: Canismater -
Aug. 30, 2005 5:12 PM ET USA