Just got this from a friend. The news is almost two weeks old and should have been headline but wasn't. Not sure why. The other side could certainly use it for fundraising and fearmongering. From Kaiser Daily Reports, May 1:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday in a speech at the University of Delaware said that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred state abortion bans, is not a precedent he is willing to accept, the Wilmington News Journal reports. "When you give the court the power to insert new rights, you also give it the power to take out old rights," he said, adding, "The right to abortion on the part of a woman is the end of the right to live on the part of the fetus"
This was an important statement because pro-aborts of late, knowing Roe was a faulty decision, have been trying to say Roe v. Wade must stay simply because we're all so used to it.
This is called the principal of stare decisis in legal terminology. Ruth Bader Ginsberg invoked it in her April 18 dissent against the pba ban decision. Liberal senators harped on this point when interrogating then-Supreme nominees Roberts and Alito.
Scalia is saying that argument won't work with him in consideration of reversing Roe.
[Hat tip: Arlene; photos courtesy of Wilmington News Journal]
Comments:
Scalia is a good man. And who knows the law better than him.
Posted by: jasper at May 10, 2007 5:00 PMApparently not willing to undue precedence when it comes to federalism. He's a mixed bag of nuts, and his stand on Roe v. Wade is very old news.
Posted by: Cameron at May 10, 2007 5:35 PMScalia is great!
Posted by: Heather4life at May 10, 2007 5:59 PMAh yes, Ruth "PBA is *not* Stare Decisis" Ginsburg. It's amazing how quickly her entire constitutional outlook changed when things weren't voted in her favor.
Posted by: Lauren
at May 10, 2007 6:03 PMwasn't Ginsberg the president of the ACLU?
Posted by: jasper at May 10, 2007 6:58 PMScalia takes his orders from the Vatican. He should be impeached for treason.
Posted by: SoMG at May 10, 2007 7:40 PMSmoggy,
You silly!
Seriously though, why is this news?
Posted by: SoMG at May 10, 2007 10:58 PMI agree, this is not news. No one ever thought Scalia considered himself bound by Roe.
Posted by: Hal at May 11, 2007 12:56 AMCorrect me if I'm wrong, but Scalia's speaking on the issue of stare decisis is new news. This has increasingly become a pro-abort talking point, since they know the Roe decision is fragile.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 11, 2007 7:58 AMApparently ,Rudy Giuliani can't seem to make up his mind on how he feels about abortion. I saw it on the news this morning. He claims to be a Catholic pro choicer, and then he flips and says he hates abortion and refuses to answer questions about it.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 11, 2007 8:09 AM@Heather4life: You can still be pro-choice but personally hate abortion.
Posted by: Rae at May 11, 2007 10:45 AMRae,
Why would anyone hate abortion?
Posted by: Mary at May 11, 2007 10:51 AM@Mary: Perhaps "hate" was the wrong word to use...disagree or dislike abortion would probably be better? For example, somebody may personally never get an abortion, but just because they wouldn't get one doesn't mean they should force their beliefs/opinions on other people. Does this make sense?
Posted by: Rae at May 11, 2007 10:55 AMRae, All I am saying is that Giuliani made a statement saying that he was very glad to see the PBA ban put into law. Then he turned around and said that he's totally pro choice. Seems to me he's just giving lip service to both sides.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 11, 2007 11:22 AMoops, I thoght I was still on the first post.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 11, 2007 11:23 AMRae,
OK, why do you dislike abortion? Does it make sense for me to say I personally oppose car theft and while I would never steal a car, I don't feel I have a right to impose my beliefs on others?
Posted by: Mary at May 11, 2007 11:35 AM