In Conversation: Antonin Scalia

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

I found some fascinating comments in an interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

On original intent:

…What I do wish is that we [the Supreme Court justices] were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we’re doing when we interpret the Constitution. I mean, that’s sort of rudimentary. It’s sort of an embarrassment, really, that we’re not. But some people think our job is to keep it up to date, give new meaning to whatever phrases it has. And others think it’s to give it the meaning the people ratified when they adopted it. Those are quite different views….

On racial vs sexual discrimination:

…there are some intelligent reasons to treat women differently. I don’t think anybody would deny that. And there really is no, virtually no, intelligent reason to treat people differently on the basis of their skin….

In response to a question about his favorite radio show:

…You know who my favorite is? My good friend Bill Bennett. He’s off the air by the time I’m driving in, but I listen to him sometimes when I’m shaving. He has a wonderful talk show. It’s very thoughtful. He has good callers. I think they keep off stupid people….

On the coarsening of our culture:

…One of the things that upsets me about modern society is the coarseness of manners. You can’t go to a movie—or watch a television show for that matter—without hearing the constant use of the F-word—including, you know, ladies using it. People that I know don’t talk like that! But if you portray it a lot, the society’s going to become that way. It’s very sad.

And you can’t have a movie or a television show without a nude sex scene, very often having no relation to the plot. I don’t mind it when it is essential to the plot, as it sometimes is. But, my goodness! The society that watches that becomes a coarse society….

Regarding homosexuality and the recent DOMA case:

… [Interviewer] In Lawrence v. Texas, you said Americans were within their rights in “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
I would write that again. But that’s not saying that I personally think it’s destructive. Americans have a right to feel that way. They have a democratic right to do that, and if it is to change, it should change democratically, and not at the ukase [decree] of a Supreme Court….

It was quite a lengthy and interesting article. Here’s a link to it: In Conversation: Antonin Scalia.

Center for Neighborhood Enterprise

I caught a segment on The World and Everything In It recently featuring Robert Woodson. He is a black leader who was around for the Civil Rights movement and remembers Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. personally. He has worked for helping those in poverty improve their position through empowerment rather than subsidy.

The basic premise is to look at the poor neighborhoods. Study what the

What he said made a lot of sense. I looked him up and found links and contributions on a number of other sites.

Poverty Cure

Center for Neighborhood Enterprise

The Bob Woodson Show

Ronald Reagan on His Knees

We need more of our politicians to have his perspective!

Traditional Marriage weakened by SCOTUS ruling

English: Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, Californi...

English: Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, California Español: Manifestación por Prop 8 en Fresno, California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court partially ruled against traditional marriage in their decision today. Thankfully they didn’t make a wholesale ruling in favor of so-called same-sex marriage. They still allowed for states to define marriage for themselves.

As far as California’s Prop 8 is concerned, the Court dismissed the appeal. This seems somewhat ambiguous. Prop 8 was a majority vote for an amendment to the California state constitution in favor of traditional marriage between only one man and one woman. A federal judge declared the amendment unconstitutional. The governor refused to appeal this ruling essentially thumbing their noses at the majority popular vote. Conservative groups appealed the federal lower court ruling to the Supreme Court. This appeal was dismissed.

The basis for appealing the dismissal was lack of precedent. Apparently SCOTUS hasn’t before entertained appeals of state laws that were not being defended by the state itself.

So on one hand, SCOTUS has affirmed states to determine a definition of marriage as the state sees fit. On the other hand, the Court didn’t slap down a lower federal court for dictating to California what sort of definition of marriage would be considered constitutional… Ambivalence? I would say somewhat biased toward the redefinition of marriage side.

Hopefully this decision will galvanize further action to strengthen traditional marriage. One way to do this is to sign the Manhattan Declaration.

 

Tipping Points

Gosnell’s House of Horrors

Supporters of Planned Parenthood

Supporters of Planned Parenthood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

This crime is really too horrific to dwell on comfortably, but it is an example of what happens when human life is thought to be cheap. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for the murder of  infants who survived their late-term abortions. He uses a procedure called snipping which basically involves cutting the baby’s spinal cord with scissors. While this sounds like the stuff of horror movies, it is real life. The acts are not denied. It is more of a matter of whether this behavior is wrong in the eyes of the law. This is a mirror held up for the American people to consider what happens when we say it is okay to kill certain innocent humans. Where do we draw the line? Please go to Colson Center to learn more about what we can do to stop this kind of heinous crime. The documentary about this crime is called 3801 Lancaster… the street address of the clinic.

 

Fox News to air 1 hour special broadcast this Sunday

 

YouTube Documentary of Gosnell’s “medical” practices

 

Sequestration: Yea or Nay?

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States Polski: Fragment preambuły Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Some people are upset about sequestration. I do not think that sequestration is the most intelligent way to proceed with spending cuts. But spending cuts have to happen. If sequestration is a way to move the ball forward on cutting spending, then let’s proceed. Cutting back our spending on programs will always upset someone. Course corrections are not fun, just necessary. This is like when we have overspent our family budget and need to cut back on our lifestyle. That is not fun, but if we understand that it is necessary and that we have a higher goal in mind, we can bite the bullet. I think this is what lies at the heart of the rancor over increased taxes versus cutting spending. The people who have grown dependent on the programs of the federal government are going to be upset when those programs decrease. But if those cuts do not happen then a little way down the road our house of cards falls down upon itself.

The answer lies in carefully reading the Constitution to remind ourselves about those necessary areas of federal involvement. The best places to cut are those areas which the federal government should not and should never have been a part of. Some of these areas include: education, healthcare, food. Some of these areas might be surprising to the modern reader who has likely never read the Constitution for themselves. Please find a copy and read your Constitution today.

Community of Women?

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria ...

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria Feldt (right), President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the steps of the Supreme Court, to rally in support of the pro-choice movement on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although widely criticized from both sides, the callous video celebrating 40 years of abortion-rights Roe v. Wade  featuring actor Mehcad Brooks dovetailed perfectly with the Marxist call for the “community of women” in which the Communist Manifesto basically calls for women to have no restriction on who, when, and for how much they will sleep with men. Really what they meant was for women to be community property. I can imagine that this sounds great to an amoral Marxist man but what woman feels properly valued in that state? If you don’t believe me read it for yourself below. Then ask yourself if the current state of morality on high school and college campuses more closely approximates the “Communist ideal” or a practice that is actually healthy for women?

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

–from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers