Originally published November 18 2015
Liberal U.S. Supreme Court destroying our democratic system, warns Justice Scalia
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Progressive, socialist-minded ideology permeating the U.S. Supreme Court is destroying constitutional democracy, according to one of the high court's own, Antonin Scalia, who has been called an "originalist" when it comes to interpreting the nation's founding document while deciding cases.
During a recent speech at Santa Clara University Law School in California, Scalia disagreed with the assumption that he is the conservative leader on a conservative-dominated court. Rather, he says he's actually a minority member on a left-leaning court, which he says is evidenced by a slew of recent decisions in favor of bigger government centralized in Washington, D.C.
In describing the high court as "liberal," Scalia criticized in no uncertain terms what he believes are a number of bad decisions that are heralding the "destruction of our democratic system."
As reported by SF Gate, Scalia believes the high court is also conveying rights to citizens that the Constitution does not convey or guarantee specifically, such as gay marriage and federally subsidized health insurance, via Obamacare.
Further, he noted that interpretation of the Constitution as a "living document" – one that should essentially change with the times – began in the 1920s shortly after the era of our first truly progressive president, Woodrow Wilson. Supreme Court justices of the day interpreted the "guarantee of due process of law to protect fundamental rights not explicitly mentioned in constitutional text," the paper noted.
Slippery slope
"The whole time I have been on my court, it has been a liberal court," said Scalia, 79, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and is part of a majority of Republican appointees throughout his tenure.
He told his audience that rulings began relatively non-controversial, like the right to educate one's own children. However, he said, decisions began descending down a "slippery slope."
"At the bottom of that slope, I can't imagine how you can go any further, is the right to same-sex marriage," he said.
"Do you think the American people would ever have ratified" the nation's founding document if they had been told "the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is?" Scalia asked.
In reference to the court's 1973 tortured ruling that legalized abortion in all states and the 1992 decision that banned states from placing an "undue burden" on abortion rights, Scalia said of justices, "They vote on the basis of what they feel" rather than on whether the Constitution actually empowers or prevents states and the federal government from acting.
"It's the destruction of our democratic system," Scalia said. "I cannot imagine the system can continue with more and more of the basic rules made by the Supreme Court."
Regarding the same-sex marriage ruling, Scalia – who was roundly panned for criticizing the ruling – said immediately after the ruling in a discussion with about 500 students at Rhodes College in Memphis that his opposition to it had nothing to do with denying any rights and everything to do with what the Constitution actually says on the matter, which is nothing.
"I worry about a Court that's headed in that direction"
The majority of justices were "not adhering to the text, they're operating as policy makers," Scalia said regarding believers in a "living Constitution." "They're not interpreting the Constitution. They're writing one, they're revising one."
Later, he said, "What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?" he asked. "It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale law school doesn't teach that stuff."
He also called the ruling "the furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants."
"Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don't know how you can get more extreme than that," he said. "I worry about a Court that's headed in that direction."
"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," he added.
Sources include:
Finance.Yahoo.com
SFGate.com
StarTribune.com
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml