U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away Saturday (February 13, 2016), believed that the role of the Court is to faithfully interpret and apply the law as it actually is—not as the Court wants it to be. Making law and policy is the job of the elected branches of government. Judges should not be legislators.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away Saturday, believed that the role of the Court is to faithfully interpret and apply the law as it actually is—not as the Court wants it to be. Making law and policy is the job of the elected branches of government. Judges should not be legislators.
That’s why Scalia took the position he did on abortion and the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not require, as the Court mistakenly ruled in Roe v. Wade (1973), a nationwide policy of abortion on demand. In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which upheld the “central holding” of Roe, Scalia explained:
The issue is whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion … for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected—because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.
Therefore, Scalia concluded,
“The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”
Dissenting in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which struck down a state law banning partial-birth abortion, Scalia wrote:
The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd.
Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990) dealt with the details of Minnesota’s parental notification law. In a complicated and divided outcome, the Court upheld the law as long as there is a judicial bypass option (Scalia would have upheld the law regardless). Scalia noted:
One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions; and will find in our society’s tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved. The random and unpredictable results of our consequently unchanneled individual views make it increasingly evident, Term after Term, that the tools for this job are not to be found in the lawyer’s—and hence not in the judge’s—workbox. I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.
Nor does anything in the Constitution prevent states from prohibiting assisted suicide or protecting against the dehydration and starvation of medically vulnerable patients. In Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990), Scalia wrote:
American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide … [T]he point at which life becomes “worthless,” and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become “extraordinary” or “inappropriate,” are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory.
Scalia was part of the unanimous decisions in Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), which held that there is no right to assisted suicide. In his dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), Scalia argued that the Attorney General is allowed, under federal law, to prevent the use of drugs in Oregon for assisted suicide:
Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible. … If the term “legitimate medical purpose” has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.
In Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, the Court usurped the authority of the American people and their elected representatives to determine abortion policy—and 58 million abortions have been the result. Some people want the Court to do the same with assisted suicide.
To prevent that from happening—and to reverse Roe, allowing for greater protection for unborn children and their mothers—we desperately need more Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia.
Editor’s note. Paul Stark is Communications Associate for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC’s state affiliate.
More Church and State Articles
Life and Politics
The American political structure forms public policy and, as such, moral issues often become political issues. For that reason, it is necessary, at times, for CLR to comment on political...
February 3rd, 2010
Save Us from the Zealots
EDITORIAL SIDE BAR: While the nation prepares to welcome a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, the candor of a sitting justice is revealing. In a July 15, 2009 interview with the...
October 1st, 2009
Healthcare Reform and the Christian Perspective
A considerable amount of debate has taken place lately on the benefits of reforming the healthcare system in the United States. Many people agree that reform is needed, but not everyone...
July 22nd, 2009
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs...
April 13th, 2009
Lobbying Your Legislator
Not sure how to lobby your legislator? Just follow these basic strategies to advocate your position to your elected official: Before Meeting Your Legislator Make an appointment in advance...
March 24th, 2009
Is the Decision Not to Vote Really an Option?
In every modern political campaign, the hot-button issue invariably involves moral values. Abortion, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide confront every candidate. These are critical...
October 24th, 2008
cit•i•zen•ship: the quality of an individual's response to membership in a community (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary)What is your response to membership in the nation...
October 21st, 2008
Things to Consider
Did Our Zeal Overshadow Judgment?
Some of the most devoted and loving people I know are in the pro-life movement. They don’t simply have an opinion but they are on the front lines, helping, lobbying, writing,...