Scalia Slams Juvenile Death Penalty Ruling
Back to the Lying Lawyers Page

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

March 14, 2005, 7:53 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted.

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

"Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution," said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986.

He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948.

"You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality, it's hard not to follow," Scalia said, in response to a question from the audience.

Scalia said increased politics on the court will create a bitter nomination fight for the next Supreme Court appointee, since judges are now more concerned with promoting their personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law.

"If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us," he said, explaining that's why senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions such as abortion.

"When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless," Scalia said.

Scalia, who has had a prickly relationship with the media, wasted no time in shooing away photographers from the public event five minutes into his speech.

"Could we stop the cameras? I thought I announced ... a couple are fine at first, but click click click click," Scalia said, impatiently waving the photographers off.

During a speech last year in Hattiesburg, Miss., a deputy federal marshal demanded that an Associated Press reporter and another journalist erase recordings of the justice's remarks.

The justice later apologized. The government conceded that the U.S. Marshals Service violated federal law in the confrontation and said the reporters and their employers were each entitled to $1,000 in damages and attorneys' fees.

* __

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press

Reply 1 - Posted by: eightiron, 3/14/2005 9:17:33 PM He's right. It's as simple as that. The next amendment to the Constitution, if there must be one, should put term limits on Federal judges.

Reply 2 - Posted by: Coy860, 3/14/2005 9:20:26 PM Juvenile death penalty....sounds like we put 11 year olds in the electric chair. The case used by the Supremes was a 17 1/2 year old, who planned the murder, bragged about it and told friends he would get away with it because he was a juvenile! Tell me this sucker shouldn't spend his time on death row! Then after living off the taxpayers for 20 some years, he would be 38 or 40 before finally paying for his crime. Of course, that is common sense, something the Liberals on the Supreme Court are sadly lacking. I wish they would go to Europe and stay there.

Reply 3 - Posted by: Ranger41, 3/14/2005 9:23:56 PM It's gratifying that a distinguished jurist like Justice Scalia would agree with my take on the issue. And, in addition to my little self indulgence, Justice Scalia is right.

Reply 4 - Posted by: Sunflower, 3/14/2005 9:33:14 PM A lot of these juvenile punk murderers are street wise at 10 11 years old. If they're old enough to murder someone, they're old enough to get the death penalty. Maybe start putting their parents in the pen also, for allowing their children to join street gangs, be druggies, etc.,

Reply 5 - Posted by: Harmony1, 3/14/2005 9:34:11 PM Justice Scalia is right. Those Supremes who think that they are entitled to MAKE LAW rather than interpret it, which is their ONLY JOB, should be forced to Deal Personally with the Consequences of their Decisions. THEY should be forced to provide care and upkeep for keeping these Monsters alive.

Reply 6 - Posted by: probono, 3/14/2005 9:39:32 PM Justice Scalia should be nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, if the Chief retires. Scalia would be able to handle the dems on the Judiciary Committee and expose them as the special interest toadies that they are. This would be a classic hearing as the likes of Kennedy, Schumer and Leahy would attempt to match wits with this brilliant justice. I love football but would much rather witness this confrontation than have a seat on the 50-yard line for the next Super Bowl.

Reply 7 - Posted by: Slake, 3/14/2005 9:44:55 PM Scalia nails it. We should be voting on these issues...since when is the Supremes in charge? Asked the Abortionists how their law was enacted?! E Gads..what a story that is eh?

Reply 8 - Posted by: Avikingman, 3/14/2005 9:48:53 PM The SCOTUS decision regarding the death penalty for those under eighteen was appalling: Our Constitution does NOT speak of personal opinions from justices; only to enforce laws. Further, decisions of this sort belong to the states not the SCOTUS. And, we need not look to other countries for our system of justice (as Stevens stated). The idea itself is abhorrent. The liberals on the court are a disgrace to the ideals of our Founding Fathers and are setting precedents contrary to democracy. These judges must be reminded that they still work for the people of this nation, not for their personal whims or politics. Send them a letter! Scalia is right. As usual. A clear voice in a cacophany of babel.

Reply 9 - Posted by: twinkiethekid, 3/14/2005 9:51:23 PM I wish I had just 10% of Justice Scalia's intellect. My IQ would probably jump 100 points!

Reply 10 - Posted by: boscon, 3/14/2005 9:55:07 PM Judge Scalia has my vote for the smartest most rational man in the American court system. For me, the rest is pure leftist crap.

Reply 11 - Posted by: California Dreamer, 3/14/2005 10:18:09 PM Scalia and Thomas are the only two Judges on the court who are not enchanted with the power of the courts to "make law". Even Rehnquist and O'Connor have succmed to the seduction of POWER. I do not know what we will have to do, but something must change. We cannot continue down the road we are on and expect our representative democracy, a Republic, to survive. The revolving door, lets make a deal, system of extortion and corruption they claim is a system of justice, must END. There is no longer justice in America, the courts are a joke.

Reply 12 - Posted by: TeacherNet, 3/14/2005 10:31:11 PM " In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty." I agree with Scalia 1000%.

Reply 13 - Posted by: Mo Gumbo, 3/14/2005 10:39:11 PM "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again" Scalia and Mark Levin could do a duet.

Reply 14 - Posted by: michiganrepublican, 3/15/2005 6:03:26 AM Did you see the one about the Judge in Sodom by the Bay who ruled that Kalifornians have no right to reject gay marriage? This judge issue is in my view far more urgent than "Sosh Security". I can't believe that the Republicans put Specter in charge but they will not get another dime of this contributors money until they get the job done.

Reply 15 - Posted by: noddy, 3/15/2005 6:17:52 AM Street punks ''get it'' when one of their own dies. They feel the hurt and see the death. So don't give me any of the liberal take that they are too young to understand. I believe from 10 years on they know what they are doing, but fo the sake of the liberals, I will suggest death penalty for 15 years and up.

Reply 16 - Posted by: G2BME, 3/15/2005 6:27:08 AM I'd like to see the Supremes walk the streets of Phila. some weekend. Considereing 11 citizens were "murdered" this past weekend, many by teens. These supremes live too sheltered of a life, they are out of touch with the main stream of America.

Reply 17 - Posted by: Aitch748, 3/15/2005 6:45:17 AM I'm inclined to agree with #1 about the need for a Constitutional amendment limiting the terms for judges (or possibly even making them electable), but I'm also inclined to believe that it won't do any good, as these judges simply IGNORE the Constitution (and the legislature!) when it gets in the way of what they want to do. Wayward judges must be impeached. The alternative is either putting up with their tyranny or removing them by armed force. (And of course if the Left also then tries to remove the good judges through armed force, we will have civil war.)

Reply 18 - Posted by: Maybeth, 3/15/2005 6:52:56 AM So, it appears that the juvenile death penalty 'opiniion' has given gangs a good reason to recuit and train young killers, since they cannot be held responsible for their crimes.

Reply 19 - Posted by: texaslass3, 3/15/2005 8:09:36 AM I watched the rerun of yesterday's speech on C-Span last night. It was really something... He is DEFINITELY running for Chief Justice and I say GREAT. You should have seen the PC audience wince when he referred to gay issues as "homosexual sodomy." Whoa. It was awesome. The man simply isn't afraid to tell the truth. The fact that his statements are so controversial tells you a lot about the decline of decent society.

Reply 20 - Posted by: Sludge, 3/15/2005 8:12:00 AM Maybe somebody should tell inJustice Stevens that in some countries, bad judges are dragged from their courthouses and strung up. Ask him if we should import that particular international practice? Any Justice using other country's laws as precedent should be impeached post haste.

Reply 21 - Posted by: milwaukeeroad, 3/15/2005 8:14:34 AM don't miss mark levins new book Men In Black as he describes the crisis with our judiciary in america. get that one on the best sellers list today.

Reply 22 - Posted by: SteelBreeze, 3/15/2005 8:57:40 AM Bottom line - The SCOTUS is in place to interpet law as it applies to The Constitution of the United States. No more, no less.

Reply 23 - Posted by: Hermoine, 3/15/2005 9:15:50 AM I agree with Scalia. . .I disagree it started with Warren (maybe in the modern era he made it worse) but Justice John Marshall is the one who set the precedent in the early 1800s. It will take someone with TWO BIG STONES to address and get a comprehensive overhaul of America's judicial system, from the SCOTUS on down.

Reply 24 - Posted by: freedomlover, 3/15/2005 9:19:19 AM I also so the rerun last night on C-Span. His talk was riveting. What was also fancinating was the audience, from the facial expressions of the angry female who despised everything he said to the bearded lawyer (professor?) who was sleeping.

Reply 25 - Posted by: ritonmom, 3/15/2005 9:21:59 AM How can they be mature and responsible to elect to have an abortion, but not know that murder is wrong? The 5 supremes must be impeached for using foreign laws to make their case. Period.

Reply 26 - Posted by: T-Bubba, 3/15/2005 9:32:23 AM Most FrenchPoodle Democrats are vehemently against the death penalty--except for Republicans.

Reply 27 - Posted by: lana720, 3/15/2005 9:37:24 AM What a real man! Truth is a powerful thing. Way to go, Justice Scalia!

Reply 28 - Posted by: WyoEagle, 3/15/2005 10:06:15 AM Nuclear option followed by Scalia as the Chief Justice. No backing down. But then again the Republicans have as much backbone as a jellyfish.

Reply 29 - Posted by: privateer, 3/15/2005 10:27:22 AM If they insist on giving a pass to killers who show a blithe precocity, how about ruling that these young killers receive an ACTUAL life sentence spent entirely at hard labor. Execution would be a badge of honor to these savages; labor is anathema. A lifetime of humiliating toil might be worse.

Reply 30 - Posted by: richefxs, 3/15/2005 10:30:13 AM looking at the post - most agree. So what are WE going to do about it???? I mean a real practical act to turn this ruling over????? Richard

Reply 31 - Posted by: Yonkers56, 3/15/2005 11:01:24 AM agree w/14...I tell every telephone solicitor to call back when they get the judge issue worked out. Same with mail; I let them know that my small contributions are on hold pending resolution of this mess.

Reply 32 - Posted by: pineledger, 3/15/2005 11:07:15 AM I don't think the US got where it is by emulating other countries.

Reply 33 - Posted by: legaltender, 3/15/2005 11:37:38 AM If Congress has the, er, beans to do it, they can make sure the Supreme Court doesn't consider foreign law when interpreting our Constitution. Art. III, sec. 2, clause 2 says: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. By a simple majority in Congress, they can enact a "Regulation" saying in effect: when addressing matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court shall not consider any source of law from any jurisdiction outside the United States. It's that easy. Think they'll do it?

Reply 34 - Posted by: texas_gop, 3/15/2005 11:56:56 AM Mark my words: A challenge to the ability to try juveniles as adults will be next. This will result in juvenile thugs being used as hit-men as they will not serve much time in jail.

Reply 35 - Posted by: ca4penn, 3/15/2005 12:41:48 PM One case stood out and that was "BMW vs Busch". Basically BMW gave Busch a car with a bad paint job. The cost of the damage was less than $1000 and had a compensatory award of $2M. The court threw out the verdict as excessive. Scalia said both conservatives and leftists enjoy the benefits of a "living constitution" (a.k.a. judgement by fiat). Leftist would have to go through the long process of changing the laws the old fashioned way. Leftists, like gays, are by nature lazy. Businesspeople, happy with the BMW verdict, don't have to put unpopular tort reform before the legislature. If you still believe in the "Pledge of Allegiance" you're wrong. We have a meritocracy (reference any liberal magazine like "Atlantic Monthly" or "Harpers"). Judges, bureaucrats, special interest groups, and lawyers make the laws. Think this is an exaggeration? Look at the war on SUVs and "Junk Food". We are ruled by the PLM machine which stands for Political, Legal, and Media. If a person joins the military they are not protecting a republic, just a Meritocracy. A meritocracy is tyranny by committee.

Reply 36 - Posted by: knighterrant, 3/15/2005 12:47:26 PM Don't forget, executing a juvenile (or any other) offender would reduce the rolls of anticipated Democratic voters. You are able to vote quite a few times after age 17!

Reply 37 - Posted by: Ranger41, 3/15/2005 1:02:13 PM Good question # 30, good idea # 31. I'm no political consultant, but I learned in school that the dollars we spend are VOTES for products and services. Every 2, 4 or 6 years we get to vote for a candidate. In between elections our vote not to send dollars to a candidate or to a party is our only way of voting on the issues we care most about. I don't think Republicans feel comfortable with what the MSM might say about their challenging DemonRats on issues like abortion, homosexual marriages, Social Security and federal judges. They've been badly burned before. Nevertheless, we must pressure the Republicans to apply some vote/dollar getting discipline to their party--to people like Spector, Collins, Chaffee and Snowe, for starters. News Alert! Wifey just told me that we should e-mail and write Mitch McConnell to show support for the nuclear option.

Reply 38 - Posted by: booshkindoggin, 3/15/2005 1:24:43 PM Unusually outspoken for a SCOTUS justice outside a formal opinion. Scalia on Earl Warren's activism: 'You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality, it's hard not to follow.' That signals that Scalia believes it is important who sits in the Chief's chair - he wants job.

Reply 39 - Posted by: Christie, 3/15/2005 1:25:01 PM I agree with the idea that the non-elected SC judges have too much power BUT I'm not in favor of the death penalty, especially for teens. I am not cynical enough to think that a teen cannot be rehabilitated. Statistics show that the death penalty doesn't deter a person bent on murder and I think putting someone to death is hypocritical, revengeful AND an easy way out for the perpetrator. I may sound compassionate but I'm a lot more cruel than my anti-capital punishment stand may indicate. I want Petersen, for instance, to suffer the rest of his pathetic life with the autopsy photos superglued to his cell walls. That is true justice in man's law... then there's a higher law that will be undoubtedly meted out. Mark Levin's book is on my list to buy and read. We can't let the SC take over!

Reply 40 - Posted by: IdahoJoe, 3/15/2005 2:27:44 PM The SC has no business doing anything but interpreting whether the laws are in accordance with the constitution. Likewise, the constitution dictates that all responsibilities not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states. I am tired of unelected judges in Washington creating laws for me, I am tired of circuit judges in Californial declaring that the vote of the people in Idaho is not law because they do not agree with it, and I am tired of senators from the other 49 states telling me how many gallons of water I may use to flush my toilet. Tell me where the constitution gives California's congressmen the right to decide how an Idahoan flushes his toilet.

Reply 41 - Posted by: TexasRose, 3/15/2005 2:44:24 PM Justice Felix Frankfurter said, "As a member of this court I am not justified in writing my opinions into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them." Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." How is that 2nd any different than, say, Saddam Hussein making the laws?

Reply 42 - Posted by: Ranger41, 3/15/2005 4:05:35 PM The time worn mantra that the death penalty does not deter capital crimes looks a bit threadbare when compared to the statement that, because our jails and peniteniaries are full of convicts, our laws do not deter crime. I'm convinced that penalties do deter some people from crime, but not all. I am not in favor of rushing the execution of a death penalty or of denying the accused a defense commensurate with the serious nature of a death penalty case. When there is reasonable doubt, don't execute a convicted criminal. Juries have made mistakes.

Reply 43 - Posted by: nycweboy, 3/15/2005 4:41:20 PM Scalia's being too coy by half - of course rolling back Roe v. Wade would be making "new law", but somehow, I'm sure he'd say that it is the Supremes making sure they don't interfere further. There really is an element of conservatism that just takes perfectly valid points - like the fact that some courts exercise too much leeway at times in deciding cases - and extrapolates overbroad accusations of a judiciary determined to make new law at every turn. It is valuable for the Supreme Court to step in and clarify contentious issues, and sometimes that involves taking the law to different places and in directions not foreseen in previous times. Usually, I think, these sorts of things are called "progress" - it may not be all good, but breathless accusations of "no judiciary interference in the law" are just absurd. That's what the courts do. Scalia ought to admit he's just asking the Court to do it in a different way.

Reply 44 - Posted by: donna quixote, 3/15/2005 5:13:13 PM I think the whole juvenile justice system needs a revamping. Why should a kid's criminal record be expunged? He doesn't change once he hits that magic number. Kids are nothing like they were decades ago when these rules were formulated.

Reply 45 - Posted by: No NWO, 3/15/2005 5:18:46 PM Just think how great it would be if ALL our justices were like this. Imagine how novel it would be to have all Constitution following justices!

Reply 46 - Posted by: warlock, 3/15/2005 5:43:44 PM I oppose the death penalty for several reasons; it does not restore the lives of the victims, the appeals process is usually far more costly than keeping a prisoner for life without parole, which I favour, and most prisoners dread a life term without possibility of parole more than they would death. That written, it does deter; no executed prisoner has ever done murder again. I am concerned about the flawed opinions of learned counsel. Most minors these days have complete understanding of their actions and even when convicted, they are much beyond their minor years when executed. I can't imagine being 18 of younger facing life without parole with relish. But this ruling begs the issue of the crime itself. Regardless of the offenders understanding or capability of understanding of what he has done, a crime so heinous as to deserve extreme retribution has been committed. On the other hand, I give unqualified support to the pro-life movement and view abortionists with the disdain due premeditated killing.

Reply 47 - Posted by: Armed Eagle, 3/15/2005 6:04:58 PM MY OLDEST SON WORKS FOR THE COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. HE TELLS ME THAT FROM HIS EXPERIENCES OVER THE PAST 18 YEARS, HE WOULD RATHER DEAL WITH THE OLDER MEN THAN MALE TEENAGERS. THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF VALUE REGARDING HUMAN LIFE, NOT EVEN THEIR OWN IN MANY CASES.

Reply 48 - Posted by: Aitch748, 3/15/2005 6:05:47 PM FYI - Rolling back Roe v. Wade would not be making new law; even if RvW were overturned, this would merely return to the separate states the right to make their own laws about abortion. Roe v. Wade, now that it has been brought up, was itself an instance of judicial overreaching, because it was an instance of judges making law independently of any legislature, and IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF JUDGES TO MAKE LAW -- PERIOD. If abortion is such a sacrament, then let the legislatures of liberal states make laws sanctifying the procedure, and then the liberals can do their part to keep the abortionists chugging away round the clock [/sarcasm] IN THEIR OWN STATES. (Is it really such a horrifying thought to liberals that New York and Massachusetts might allow late-term abortions but that Utah might not???) (Also note that I am deliberately sidestepping the moral aspects of abortion here. :-) )

Reply 49 - Posted by: Pleiades, 3/15/2005 7:06:21 PM Some if not most of the blame for the degenerating state of the U.S.rests on Congress,the White House. Congress,with the power to stop them, won't. A president who doesn't veto. Foreign Affaris has become Job One. Hordes of illegal run amuk killing, terrorizng, robbing the citizens of billions of tax dollars; commercial pilots cannot carry arms; citizens subject to random body searches; luggage, without probably cause; profile suspects float through; PC destroying education;American History obsolete. Run-away deficits and spending. Freedom of Speech/Religion a mockery. Big Brother has arrived. Ignoring greatest tool a President has to work change; Bully Pulpit. Rarely used except for pet projects. When this President exit's office: Welcome third-country U.S.A. If the American people don't demand change and accountablity- even if we have to stage another Boston tea party, it won't happen. The choice is ours. The Constitution gave us that right!

Reply 50 - Posted by: TexasRose, 3/15/2005 7:37:14 PM L-dotter - "...breathless accusations of "no judiciary interference in the law" are just absurd. That's what the courts do. Scalia ought to admit he's just asking the Court to do it in a different way." NO! Scalia is asking for the court to actually stand by what the law meant at the time that it was conceived. It's sickening when a Supreme Court Justice goes to "International Law" to come up with a ruling. Any judge who does that should be immediately impeached. And as far as I can see, Roe V Wade WAS new law at the time it was made. Legislature did not make it. The Courts made it. And WE THE PEOPLE had NO choice in the matter. These judges are unelected, therefore, unaccountable to the people. That is NOT how law is to be made in the United States of America. (Cue "Star Spangled Banner")

Reply 51 - Posted by: Ranger41, 3/15/2005 9:16:37 PM What hardly gets any ink is the fact that the Constitution has a democratic provision for amending the Constitution which the Supremes seem to ignore. If the Constitution is law, then new Constitutional law should come from the amendment process, not from judicial fiat. We can be certain that the Constitution was originally a compact between separate states because it takes the ratification by three fourths of the states to amend the document. That compact has been repeatedly broken by the Supremes. Even as late as 1865 after the South and slavery were totally defeated, it took the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments to make slavery constituionally illegal, paving the way for Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. Returning our compact between the states to the people would be undoing unconstitutional law, not making new law.