I never thought I'd disagree with Scalia....

In a speech to Duquesne University on Saturday, Scalia discussed whether his Catholic faith played a role in his duties as Supreme Court Justice.

Commented Scalia, "I am sometimes asked if my beliefs as a Catholic – I would rather say my nature or my identity as a Catholic – affects my legal decision. My response is ‘I certainly hope not’”.

“The laws that I apply have a fair meaning. And that meaning is no different for a Catholic than it is for a Jew, any more than it is different for a woman and a man, or a white man and a black.”

In other words, his judgement, as a Supreme Court Justice, is based solely on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. That Catholicism's ethical standards are parallel to those of the Constitution does not mean that Scalia's decisions are religiously-based.

But this is not where I disagree with Justice Scalia (a person for whom I have GREAT respect).

Rather, it's the comments he made following his initial comments that are at issue with me...

Scalia stated, "In my honest reading of the Constitutional text, it addresses the subject (abortion) not at all, which means it is left up to the individual states."

Although Scalia IS correct in that the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY state anything about "abortion" itself, the notion that the concept of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution is flatly wrong.

The Constitution demands equality for ALL, irrespective of race, creed, color....OR stage in life.

Even Liberals cannot argue this point, as this notion is the basis for all civil rights legislation.

After all, if one can claim that the Constitution provides equality for ANY human, it must, therefore, provide equality for ALL humans.

So, the rights of ALL--EVEN the not-yet born--are NOT a matter for individual states.

Wasn't this the same argument in the days when slavery was legal??

Either EVERYONE is equal, or NO ONE is...

Sorry Antonin......

Hirota: out.