.gif)
From The Wall Street Journal and ADF:
Antonin Scalia shoots from the hip on 'undemocratic' European Union Mark Schliebs From: The Australian February 04, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share
Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?THERE is little chance US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could ever bore an audience.
At the University of Adelaide on Wednesday night, he let fly at the "undemocratic" European Union and the European Court of Human Rights and defended his decision to provide a dissenting opinion to a ruling that abolished sodomy laws in Texas.
As the longest serving justice of the current Supreme Court, Reagan appointee Justice Scalia -- a champion of state rights -- is a warhorse of the court's conservative wing and is regarded as one of the most powerful debaters on the bench.
Even at the beginning of his speech, the audience of lawyers, academics and students was warned that the former assistant attorney general to the Nixon and Ford administrations would not be holding back.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"The views I express aren't necessarily the views of the government of the United States or of the Supreme Court . . . my views are often not their views," Justice Scalia said.
He then declared his distaste for the workings of the European Union.
"The European Union is the most obvious example of how democratic choice can produce reduced democracy," he said.
"Some member states joined the union from popularly ratified treaties . . . but its effect has, nonetheless, reduced democratic choice.
"To be sure, it has an elected parliament. But as a practical matter its edicts are determined by an unelected commission, and interpreted and enforced by an unelected court.
"In this system . . . even the national constitutions of member states can be overwritten by bureaucratic directors resting on nothing more than the say-so of officials in Brussels."
His famous self-confidence and power to control a debate was also on show when challenged on a minor point during a brief Q&A.
"Is there a question here?" he asked an academic who wanted to know his views on the possible influence corporations have on judiciaries. "I don't agree with your premises to begin with, so I don't how I'm going to answer your question."
He did finally provide an answer, of sorts: "I am for good and against evil."
Afterwards, former Howard government defence minister Robert Hill, now chancellor of the University of Adelaide, said the response was true to form.
"The last time I heard Justice Scalia, I asked a similar question on the International Criminal Court and got a similar answer," Mr Hill said.
But philosophical jousting aside, Justice Scalia was most scathing of the European Court of Human Rights, which he said lacked the democratic authority to rule on controversial topics like same-sex marriage and abortion.
"They are often the controversial topics on which domestic elections are won or lost," Justice Scalia said. "It is a prescription for the elimination of democracy to establish a court that is to provide binding and authoritative answers to these questions."
Justice Scalia cited Lawrence v Texas -- a 2003 US Supreme Court decision that ruled that a state cannot legislate against sodomy -- as an example of how the judiciary should not undermine the sovereignty of a state or nation. Justice Scalia was one of three who dissented. "In the course of the argument, the petitioner pointed out that homosexual sodomy was lawful throughout Europe," he said. "Indeed it was -- not because of democratic choice by the people of Europe, but because of an agreement in the Court of Human Rights."
"We would never think of leaving questions of economic policy to judges because in that field there is plenty of room for debate.
"That same attitude of moral certainty explains why the Europeans are so self-righteously critical of the United States with respect to capital punishment."
Antonin Scalia shoots from the hip on 'undemocratic' European Union Mark Schliebs From: The Australian February 04, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share
Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?THERE is little chance US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could ever bore an audience.
At the University of Adelaide on Wednesday night, he let fly at the "undemocratic" European Union and the European Court of Human Rights and defended his decision to provide a dissenting opinion to a ruling that abolished sodomy laws in Texas.
As the longest serving justice of the current Supreme Court, Reagan appointee Justice Scalia -- a champion of state rights -- is a warhorse of the court's conservative wing and is regarded as one of the most powerful debaters on the bench.
Even at the beginning of his speech, the audience of lawyers, academics and students was warned that the former assistant attorney general to the Nixon and Ford administrations would not be holding back.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"The views I express aren't necessarily the views of the government of the United States or of the Supreme Court . . . my views are often not their views," Justice Scalia said.
He then declared his distaste for the workings of the European Union.
"The European Union is the most obvious example of how democratic choice can produce reduced democracy," he said.
"Some member states joined the union from popularly ratified treaties . . . but its effect has, nonetheless, reduced democratic choice.
"To be sure, it has an elected parliament. But as a practical matter its edicts are determined by an unelected commission, and interpreted and enforced by an unelected court.
"In this system . . . even the national constitutions of member states can be overwritten by bureaucratic directors resting on nothing more than the say-so of officials in Brussels."
His famous self-confidence and power to control a debate was also on show when challenged on a minor point during a brief Q&A.
"Is there a question here?" he asked an academic who wanted to know his views on the possible influence corporations have on judiciaries. "I don't agree with your premises to begin with, so I don't how I'm going to answer your question."
He did finally provide an answer, of sorts: "I am for good and against evil."
Afterwards, former Howard government defence minister Robert Hill, now chancellor of the University of Adelaide, said the response was true to form.
"The last time I heard Justice Scalia, I asked a similar question on the International Criminal Court and got a similar answer," Mr Hill said.
But philosophical jousting aside, Justice Scalia was most scathing of the European Court of Human Rights, which he said lacked the democratic authority to rule on controversial topics like same-sex marriage and abortion.
"They are often the controversial topics on which domestic elections are won or lost," Justice Scalia said. "It is a prescription for the elimination of democracy to establish a court that is to provide binding and authoritative answers to these questions."
Justice Scalia cited Lawrence v Texas -- a 2003 US Supreme Court decision that ruled that a state cannot legislate against sodomy -- as an example of how the judiciary should not undermine the sovereignty of a state or nation. Justice Scalia was one of three who dissented. "In the course of the argument, the petitioner pointed out that homosexual sodomy was lawful throughout Europe," he said. "Indeed it was -- not because of democratic choice by the people of Europe, but because of an agreement in the Court of Human Rights."
"We would never think of leaving questions of economic policy to judges because in that field there is plenty of room for debate.
"That same attitude of moral certainty explains why the Europeans are so self-righteously critical of the United States with respect to capital punishment."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment