As UW-Madison International Socialist Organization protesters with neon signs walked into Science Hall Thursday, renowned conservative Phyllis Schlafly said, \Oh, I'm glad; we have some people we can convert tonight.""
Schlafly, author, lawyer and former appointee to the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, expressed her disagreement with those whom she termed ""judicial supremacists,"" during her Distinguished Lecture Series appearance.
She described these ""supremacists"" as activist Supreme Court judges who make cases for or against controversial contemporary issues, often bypassing congressional and presidential approval and citing constitutional revisionism as the basis for their decisions.
Strict constitutional interpretation and advocacy of legislative change through congressional means comprised the majority of Schlafly's argument.
""It isn't living and evolving,"" Schlafly said of the U.S. Constitution. ""It's in black and white.""
When asked her opinion of judicial review, however, Schlafly said she did not entirely reject the concept.
""It's like a baseball game; you need an umpire,"" she said. ""You need someone there to call the close ones.""
Highly contested issues, particularly capital punishment, often rely on judicial review.
Regarding the murder of Missouri woman Shirley Crook committed by 17-year-old Christopher Simmons which ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court's overturn of Missouri and 20 other states' juvenile capital punishment laws,"" Schlafly said. ""There is absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution to prohibit capital punishment.""
""The Constitution endorses capital punishment in several different places and makes no difference about age,"" Schlafly said.
Schlafly's views provoked varying responses.
""While she's a really articulate speaker, she's trying to use inflammatory words in order to be persuasive,"" UW-Madison psychology research associate Shelly Grabe said.
Schlafly's citations of Dred Scott v. Stanford as the ""most evil example of the judicial supremacists"" and Brown v. Board of Education as ""simply overturning Plessy v. Ferguson,"" as well as her past work in defeating the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment elicited outspoken reactions from the audience.
""She calls Dred Scott 'supremacy' because she disagreed with it, but Brown v. Board of Education an overturn because she agreed,"" UW-Madison junior and ISO member Laura Nelson said. ""I would say anyone who doesn't believe in equal rights for women is a supremacist.""
Other audience members said they agreed with Schlafly's views.
""I'm really happy she came to Madison,"" UW-Madison senior Ryan Horrisberger said. ""So many [conservative] people are intimidated because Madison is so liberal.\
