Scalia Enters the Snakepit

On Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia participated in a televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union head Nadine Strossen, before an audience of ACLU supporters.

From the Associated Press:

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."

"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.

Strossen countered by playing the race card:

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.
Scalia turned the tables:
"The Constitution very clearly forbids discrimination on the basis of race," Scalia said in response to a question by moderator Pete Williams of NBC. "It doesn't seem to me to allow Michigan to say we think it's good to discriminate on the basis of race when you want to make sure everyone is exposed to different backgrounds. We cannot use race as the test of diversity."
This dealt neatly with Strossen's argument, while pointing out that racial discrimination is fine with her, so long as it's a form of which she approves.

Via Jay at Stop the ACLU, who has more commentary.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:11 PM

Comments

1 He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues.

That's too much sense for the Liberal mind to grasp all in one session.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 16, 2006 12:09 AM

2 No wonder the lefturds hate him so much.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 16, 2006 03:35 AM

3 He tells the truth on the way the court decides our nations future. When the general public finally rebels against the liberal pro gay, pro immigrant, pro minority first policies of the last 30 yrs the court will be in the average guys court.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 07:09 AM

4 Guess what? The general public is liberal pro gay, pro immigrant, pro minority. we're doomed ....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 16, 2006 07:39 AM

5 Guess what? The general public is liberal pro gay, pro immigrant, pro minority. we're doomed...

Guess what, I'm an astronaut and the moon is really made of cheese. Don't be a moron.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 16, 2006 08:15 AM

6 That is why re-education is needed. The general public has been the victims of liberal academia for the last 30 years. Our students didn't learn much besides liberalism. Where's Pol Pot when you need him?

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 08:22 AM

7 Guess what? My comment sent Carlos into orbit. Which are you Carlos? Gay, immigrant, minority or all the above?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 16, 2006 03:26 PM

8 If I'm in orbit, you're in another universe.

What difference does it make what I am. The reason the Left has to resort to the courts (see Scalia's comments) is precisely because the American people are NOT with them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 16, 2006 03:35 PM

9 Carlos is alright. I agree with 90% of his rants. He doesn't agree with my stand on blacks in America but what the hell he has his reason and I have mine. Doesn't make him a bad fellow.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 03:57 PM

10 Anyone who is pro-gay is gay,
unless you count that as freeing up more hot chicks for action, in
which case, I'm all for faggotry. That should make gregturd happy,
except that prepubescent boys are still off limits, and he'll have to
wait until his next trip to Thailand for a nice dish of cream of sum-yung-guy.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 17, 2006 07:46 PM

11 Being a teenager in San Francisco in the 50's was fun. Surplus of women. Life was good as long as you didn't try to go into a movie theatre on Market street. Of course back then it was okay to knock their teeth out. Now you go to jail for removing a fags hand from your leg. Straight while folks are leaving San Francisco in droves.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 17, 2006 08:23 PM

12 It's called Sum-Yung-Guy Pate'. Cream is a French thing, Maxie.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 18, 2006 05:55 PM






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0064 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0047 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.