After being announced by President Trump as the next Associate Justice, Neil Gorsuch greets Maureen & Fr. Scalia

Sean Spicer @PressSec
After being announced by @POTUS as the next Assoc Justice #SCOTUS Neil Gorsuch greets Maureen & Fr. Scalia

Link:

• Sean Spicer @ Twitter

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

By Gary Martin

(SFGATE) Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.  

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia's death.

"I was told it was this morning," Biery said of Scalia's death. "It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it's pretty vague right now as to how," he said. "My reaction is it's very unfortunate. It's unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we're in, my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected."

The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation.
Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.

A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

Staff writers Vianna Davila, Tyler White and Richard A. Marini, John MacCormack and Guillermo Contreras contributed to this report.

Link:

• Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

States could force Catholic priests to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ or lose legal status: Justice Scalia

By Fr. Mark Hodges

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 29, 2015, (LifeSiteNews.com) – If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, one justice has said that the government could force clergy of all denominations to perform gay “weddings” or lose the ability to officiate any state-sanctioned marriage.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that will decide whether the Constitution forbids states from upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Among the exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly noted that if the High Court finds same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right, then priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams will be required to perform such ceremonies – regardless of their religious beliefs – or face state penalties.
Justice Scalia repeatedly suggested that once a constitutional right to marry by same-sex couples was enshrined by the court, a member of the clergy could not be given civil marriage powers by the state unless he agreed to perform any and all marriages that the nation legally recognizes.

"Every state allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under state law,” Scalia said. “That will not be the case if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the state must marry two men."

As it stands, most clergy serve a dual role, celebrating church nuptials but also signing legal documents allowing the state to legally recognize that marriage. But if they refuse to conduct same-sex rituals, government officials may strip clergy of their state legal standing, rendering their marriages legally invalid in the eyes of the state government.

He said he was reticent to give the power to compel someone to violate his conscience to the State. “I'm concerned about the wisdom of this court imposing through the Constitution a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons," Scalia said. He noted that most religious denominations "are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of."

Justice Scalia noted the key difference between state laws, which can make exceptions for religious beliefs, and finding a right to gay "marriage" in the Constitution, which would allow no exceptions.

"Were the states to [redefine marriage] by law, they could make exceptions to what is required for same-sex marriage, who has to honor it, and so forth. But once it's made a matter of constitutional law...is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?"

His question was rebuffed by some of the court's liberal justices, who pointed to the "free exercise of religion" clause in the Bill of Rights – but it was not answered.

Unsatisfied, Justice Scalia continued to explain that same-sex "marriage" bans in the states "are laws. They are not constitutional requirements. If you let the states [redefine marriage], you can make a [religious] exception. The state can say, 'Yes, two men can marry — but ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state.' You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription."

A devout Roman Catholic, Scalia said that no religious exception can be allowed for a constitutional right. A minister "is not given the state’s power, unless he agrees to use that power in accordance with the Constitution. You can’t appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the Constitution.”

"I don't see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, 'I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men,'" Scalia said.

“I don't see any answer to that,” the justice said. “I really don't."

He also drew a subtle but clear attention to the fact that the ultimate impact would be to favor liberal denominations, like the Episcopal Church, over traditional ones like the Roman Catholic Church. "You could have ministers who conduct real marriages that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthew's downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the state power to make a real state marriage.”
  The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes told Fox News' Bret Baier that a ruling in favor of same-sex "marriage" would leave religious liberties vulnerable.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Todd Starnes it’s now “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”

Many Christian leaders are concerned that if the Supreme Court finds same-sex "marriage" a constitutional right, they will be forced to disobey federal law – and, like the civil rights protesters of the 1960s, accept the legal consequences that follow.

Such a scenario is not new. In 2014, two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex "weddings" or face a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 a day fine. The ministers sued and won, this time.

"The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremy Tedesco said. “The reality is it’s already happening.”

Link:

• States could force Catholic priests to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ or lose legal status: Justice Scalia 

Justice Antonin Scalia Wears Saint Thomas More's Hat to Inauguration

From Fr. Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS:

Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond School of Law writes:

The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.

Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.

Link:

• Closely related to the biretta…

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Again Says Abortion Right Nonexistent

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 8, 2008

Bristol, RI (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to educate the law students of America and, once again, presented his explanation that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution to students at Roger Williams University. Last month, Scalia told students at the University of Central Missouri the same thing.

Scalia said a legal right to an abortion is not found in the document that guides our judicial process.

If abortion advocates wanted to create a legitimate abortion right, they should rely on passing laws in the legislature rather than asking courts to unilaterally create one, he said.

“You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea — and pass a law,” Scalia said.

More

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Abortion Isn't Found in the Constitution

Warrensburg, MO (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to students at the University of Central Missouri on Tuesday night and told them that abortion isn't found in the Constitution. He also indicated he would be lucky to get 60 votes in today's political climate where abortion rules how senators vote on judicial confirmations.

"The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all," Scalia said of abortion. "It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy."

"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said, according to a Columbia Tribune report.

According to the newspaper, Scalia rejected the pro-abortion notion that the founding document is a "living Constitution," that is supposed to change with the times rather than guarantee ironclad rules and legal principles.

He also rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is bound by precedent -- such as in the Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade cases.

"For me, perhaps most important of all, does the precedent allow me to function as a lawyer, which is what a judge is supposed to do?" he asked.

The Tribune indicated Scalia said he's frustrated by the over-politicized climate that surrounds the nomination and approval of judges.

"I couldn't get 60 votes today because the people, representatives in Congress, want to pick somebody who will write the constitution we want," he said.

• Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Abortion Isn't Found in the Constitution