Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
Scalia neededs to legitimately raped. Squeal like a pig, you fat fuck!
I believe that Scalia has every right not to marry a man if he really doesn't want to.
i honestly hope he has a heart attack very soon.
OP, to be fair, he explicitly said later that he did *not* equate the two:
"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told freshman Duncan Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both."
And btw this statement from him sounds almost *reasonable*. Obviously he is personally anti-abortion, but there's nothing in the Constitution about it (or homosexuality, obvious), and leaving it up to the citizens means that abortion isn't going anywhere, nor is gay marriage, for that matter.
R4, you're sliding down the snot trail Scalia's rhetoric lays down for the gullible and naive. He may pretend to a a reductio ad absurdum explanation (defense, really), but it is a sleigh-of-hand approach to matters of rights as well as human dignity. He is a hypocrite.
The issue is not that "morality" or "offensiveness" in the views of the majority may dictate irrevocably the fates if the minority. The issue is the limits that may be placed on the disruption of individual rights in the face of the mob. Scalia's argument is one that would say, yes, of course, slavery was quite acceptable until the majority changed its collective mind - the only issue is whether you could get enough votes for a constitutional amendment to end it. In other words, if enough states voted to kill all redheads, then all redheads would die. He doesn't believe that any more than we do.
It is a self-servingly narrow approach - a gaming approach - to judicial responsibility, and one that he himself tramples when he is of a mind to defend a course of action more tailored to his radical right-wing agenda. He is not a strict constructionist. He is not a literalist. He is not a states' rights advocate. He is a demagogue with a personal agenda and a bullying manner that has caused the nation great harm.
And Scalia's choice of terms is purposefully inflammatory and degrading. Again, acting as if his listeners are stupid because they don't get his rhetoric is equivalent to saying that it's your fault his knife cut you because you took his stabbing too literally.
Don't try to get anyone here to go along with your "almost 'reasonable'" crap. It smacks of a Stockholm syndrome.
Very well said, R5.
Supreme Court appointments for life need to be banned. Call this new law the Scalia Law.
This piece of shit is just one more thing we can thank Ronnie Reagan for. I hope hell is hot enough for him.
[quote]Supreme Court appointments for life need to be banned.
Lifetime judicial appointments are in the Constitution. They're not going anywhere - and this is a good thing. On balance, we've been vastly better off over the past 200 years by having permanent appointments, and the court has on many issues been far more "activist" than the federal government as a whole (not on gay-related issues, admittedly (yet), but certainly on racial discrimination, abortion, etc.). This wouldn't have happened if they had to worry about public opinion. Also, considering we've had Republicans in the White House for 20 of the past 32 years, it's probably good that they haven't been able to appoint justices on whim.
He and Thomas are constantly flouting SCOTUS traditions of decorum and crossing the lines of what is appropriate and having many conflicts of interest problems.
What body has checks and balances over them?
Off topic but can someone post a thread for this article about how the media blew the biggest story of the election. It states the right has gone insane basically and the media was too scared of looking biased to say so. These guys are NOT liberals. They were highly regarded as non partisan go to people for the facts and now they are banished from the Sunday shows.
It needs to be passed around to everyone who ever claims media is liberal. Also, sent to all those media outlets like CNN who don't even try to hide this fact.
The Constitution can be changed and overruled. Why do so many people think otherwise?
[quote]What body has checks and balances over them?
Congress. The SC can only override codified federal laws if they're plainly unconstitutional. Furthermore, Congress is free most of the time to write laws that overrule Supreme Court decisions (ones that weren't decided on the basis of constitutional interpretation, at least. In many cases over the years the Court has acted on an issue only because Congress has failed to do so, and the issue is in need of clarity or resolution; abortion is a great example there.
[quote]The Constitution can be changed and overruled.
Um, no, it can't. Constitutional amendments can *clarify* rights that are not explicitly stated in the original constitution and/or earlier amendment, but there has NEVER been ANY alteration to the original U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Sure there has. The original Constitution said that blacks are 3/5 of a person. The 13, 14 and 15 amendment changed that. The original Constitution said state legislatures, not the people, vote in Senators. That's changed. So anything can be changed.
[quote]Sure there has. The original Constitution said that blacks are 3/5 of a person.
Not quite. There is no mention of blacks or slavery in the Constitution. For the determination of Congressional representation and tax rates ONLY, "non-free" persons are "counted" at 3/5ths the amount versus a property-owning voter. The 13th-15th amendments defined blacks as eligible voters and made slavery illegal, thus eliminating the relevance of the 3/5ths provision for "non-free persons," but the original text has never been rewritten. Again, clarifications are not the same thing as alterations.
That said, it would theoretically be possible to add an amendment giving Supreme Court justices term limits. The only thing it says in the Constitution is that they can remain on the court as long as they engage in "good behavior," which the Court later *interpreted* as a lifetime appointment absent behavior bad enough to warrant impeachment in Congress (and yes, just like the president a Supreme Court justice can be subjected to a congressional trial and removed if found guilty). It would thus not be unconstitutional per se for the people and states to ratify an amendment either explicitly defining "good behavior" or simply putting in a term limit. OTOH the likelihood of that is nil, particularly in today's highly partisan climate. (There's a reason we haven't passed any new amendments in nearly 50 years.) Regardless of which side launched such an effort, it would immediately be dismissed by the other side as a "partisan attack." We are also *far* too divided a country now for two-thirds of BOTH sides of Congress AND three-fourths of the states to ratify an amendment, as required (which is why there has never been any real possibility of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage).
The Constitution was amended to strip presidents of multiple terms (Twenty-second Amendment).
The Supreme Court should not be a lifetime appointment. Fresh eyes need to be brought to interpret the Constitution. These morons can be dribbling into their adult diapers, and be on their deathbeds, and still be able to rule. It's happened already.
CBS Poll: 60 percent oppose lifetime Supreme Court appointments
"Supreme Court "Injustices": Why Term Limits Are Absolutely Necessary for Our Nation's Court"
Let's face it. The thought of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia presiding over us for the next decade -- if not longer -- and doing their "right" best to reverse course and halt our progress as we try to move forward as a nation, should send shivers up any reasonably intelligent person's spine.
Granted, Chief Justice, John Roberts (a conservative), recently sided with the liberals on immigration, and, most importantly, health care. But, with all the talk surrounding the possible motivation behind Roberts' decision -- the least popular option being he believed it was best for the American people -- it doesn't exactly breed confidence in the judiciary.
Looking at the big picture, whether or not Roberts is for or against health care is practically irrelevant. The fact that the presumption exists he voted with the liberals to "preserve the integrity of the Court," and not because he felt it was the right thing to do for the American people, is a pretty scary thought.
We have a chamber full of "lifetime appointees" who've sided along party lines for so long, and in so many recent crucial decisions (Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, Montana's campaign laws, etc.), they're actually in danger of turning the once-respected court into nothing more than a bunch of "Court Jesters." Presently, there's such fierce dissenting and infighting amongst the judges themselves, would anyone be surprised if they all were summoned before Judge Judy?
"Justice Scalia, you put gum on the seat of Justice Sotomayor. You owe her $685.14 for a new robe."
On the liberal side, the fact that Justice Ginsberg hasn't retired during Obama's current term makes things even more precarious. If Romney wins, and, five days later, Ginsberg decides she's had enough, that means a 6-3 conservative majority on abortion, gay marriage, etc. And, we didn't think things could get any worse.
The current approval rating of the Supreme Court is a measly 33 percent, up a bit from its all-time low of 28 percent just three months ago. In business, nothing screams A CHANGE IS NEEDED! like a low approval rating. If the Supreme Court were a publicly traded company, its largest shareholders would be leaping out windows as we speak.
Maybe that's the answer? Make Congress bet on the Court like Fantasy Baseball. The more money they lose, the more amenable they'll be to booting a few.
To put the whole "lifetime appointment" thing in perspective, try and remember, the folks whose idea it was to appoint Supreme Court justices for life had wooden teeth. This decision, made over 225 years ago when monarchies were the main form of government, was, for the most part, due to the fear that politics would play too much of a role if the judges had to worry about losing their jobs under the king. I wonder what they'd say today. Perhaps a slight revamp, Your Majesty?
Another, even more intriguing, but most-likely-doomed-to-failure, option is to do what Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at G.W. suggests -- and that is follow the lead of our more advanced, overseas neighbors and appoint several dozen justices to the court.
Professor Turley points out Germany has 16 justices, Japan 15, Israel 15, and France uses 124 judges who are rotated. Either of these systems would be better than what we have now, and would, no doubt, dramatically cut down on the politics and power of our current system.
Turley also adds, there's nothing magic about the number nine. Our founding fathers didn't specify any number of justices, thus, if we, as a people, can threaten enough of our representatives with unemployment, they may be open to revisiting this way-too-out-of-date Constitutional provision. If they need a nostalgic opinion, simply present to them the words of Ben Franklin or George Mason, the orchestrator of the Bill of Rights: "Nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." (Insert Butthead laugh here.)
Whether you're for or against term limits, believe in increasing -- or decreasing -- the number of justices, or just feel we should leave everything alone, you have to agree; in today's incredibly fast-paced, technologically-driven society, it's a bit unnerving having nine, stuffy, old lawyers -- some of whom probably still have a subscription to T.V. Guide -- acting as the final word on future policy.
God forbid some bio-tech geek discovers the secret to immortality in the next five years. Video stores everywhere would have to move The Matrix into the non-fiction section.
[quote]Um, no, it can't. Constitutional amendments can *clarify* rights that are not explicitly stated in the original constitution and/or earlier amendment, but there has NEVER been ANY alteration to the original U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Semantics. Amendments do alter the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution is a living document.
The Bill of Rights itself changed the US Constitution.
R13, the US Constitution is a legal document, not a law of physics. Gravity can't be changed, the US Constitution can be and can even be entirely torn up and thrown away and replaced by another document. (Which is exactly what would happen if the USA was divided into 2 countries)
Why do Americans think the USA will last forever? The USA is a very new country on a 4,540,000,000 year old planet, where few civilizations ever make it past 1,000 years.
[quote[The Constitution was amended to strip presidents of multiple terms (Twenty-second Amendment).
Yet AGAIN, the Constitution itself was not changed. There is no mention in the original, one way or the other, about presidential terms. There was also no defined succession-of-power provision beyond the VP assuming office if a president dies or is killed in office, hence the need for the 25th Amendment.
[quote]These morons can be dribbling into their adult diapers, and be on their deathbeds, and still be able to rule. It's happened already.
Please list examples, and be specific. Rehnquist is the ONLY modern justice who died while still on the bench, but please cite cases that he fucked up.
[quote]Why do Americans think the USA will last forever? The USA is a very new country on a 4,540,000,000 year old planet, where few civilizations ever make it past 1,000 years.
Oh sweet Jesus. Who the fuck do you think is arguing that America will last "forever"? Obviously at *some* point it'll be conquered or we'll all die thanks to global warming, but you're attempting to use a ridiculous argument to sidetrack the thread.
At least 12 states had sodomy laws when Lawrence v Texas was decided. It is unlikely that the Constitution would be amended because of outrage over comments and rulings by Scalia. A large percentage of America agrees with Scalia.
[quote]At least 12 states had sodomy laws when Lawrence v Texas was decided.
What's your point? Many *more* states than that still had laws against miscegenation and abortion on their books when Supreme Court rulings superseded them.
R23, get back to the 'fat girls' thread you started. It's more in line with your intellectual abilities.
r23, how many states for each?
F&F, r3. We don't need these sorts of posts here. You may not agree with him but he is an intelligent man and deserves your respect. Why does this site encourage so many negative threads? Where's the positivity?
R24, you're the DataLounge Troll Detection Team, aren't you? Why are you troll-dar-stalking me?
R25, 30 states banned abortion when it was legalized by Roe v. Wade, and 16 states still banned interracial marriage when the Supreme Court ruled on it.
I was pretty sure it was Scalia sucking my dick at the glory hole in DC.
[R26] I can only speak for myself but no one deserves my respect. How about earning it? You can have respect for an office but that is not the same as deserving respect.
Notice how the R13/R21 ignores
[quote]The original Constitution said state legislatures, not the people, vote in Senators.
I hope he's caught killing a male Republican Congressman before fucking him and his dog.
R30, you're really, *REALLY* trying too hard. Direct election of senators was superseded by the 17th Amendment; as I've already stated, the original constitution has not itself been altered. You are nitpicking to belabor a ridiculous basic point, that there is somehow ANY possibility of a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. I have already stated, quite some time ago, that such an amendment is theoretically *possible*, however, given that there is no specific verbiage in the Constitution itself about SC term limits.
R32 - look at any copy of the Constitution, and you'll see many parts crossed out due to amendments. You've been proven wrong countless times on this thread. Give it up.
Unfortunately, R26, because he was appointed for life, the only way to get rid of him is for him to drop dead. I don't wish death on anyone, but I want him gone.
[quote]R32 - look at any copy of the Constitution, and you'll see many parts crossed out due to amendments.
My goodness, yes! I'm positively BLINDED by all the crossed-out parts!
I think his rhetoric on this issue is disgusting. It's jsut that simple.
He is a bigot who happens to be on the Supreme Court.
Troll, is your insane point that no one has ever taken a Sharpie to the original copies of the Constitution? Fine, we'll concede that. As well as the fact that you're a complete idiot.
Life tenure is specifically set out in Article III. Just like, say, the 17th Amendment, which voided wording in the original text of Article I (despite your bizarre misunderstanding of the word "supersede"), the Constitution could easily be amended to replace the phrasing "during good Behavior" with "for a period of 18 years, dependent on good behavior."
And before you claim that "during good Behavior" doesn't mean life tenure, the document is read in para materia. As every other office listed has a specific term (2, 4, or 6 years), the lack of a set term for Article III judges and the phrasing mean life tenure.
Whether such an amendment is a good idea is another question. As much as I disagree with Scalia and Thomas, I think life tenure is a good thing.
[quote]Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
R37, who are you disagreeing with, exactly? I'm confused. You appear to be both agreeing *and* disagreeing with R23/R32, who mentioned the word "supersede" (in a context that to me, a fellow J.D., seems like lawyerly equivocating) but has also argued, like you, in favor of lifetime tenure and points out that "good Behavior" could very well be modified, in theory, to incorporate a specific term limit.
What is good about life tenure? Clearly, the Justices should be immune from political machinations, but I can't think of a single advantage of life tenure over a single 15-year-term.
There are many problems with life tenure including the (originally) Republican strategy of appointing only young people to cling to power for decades, the macabre practice of waiting for a Justice to die and the Justices' ability to time their retirements to their party's control of the White House.
A single 15-year term would eliminate all of this and bring the benefit of fresh minds. The Justices would still be relatively insulated from political pressure.
R40, 15-year term limits would allow a president in office for two terms to much more easily appoint a majority entirely on his own. (If you're in office eight out of 15 years, then logically you will most likely get to appoint either four or five justices.) Personally, I'm bothered enough by George W. Bush having appointed only *two* justices, let alone five. Those kinds of odds could very clearly lead to a single president hijacking the entire court with his or her own personal agenda. Can you even *imagine* the kind of damage a Supreme Court with five Bush appointees would've wreaked by now?? (Btw it's practically a given now that future justices will be either solidly liberal or solidly conservative, given how polarized America is now. No more Reagan- and Bush 41-style "fuck ups" of appointing justices like Souter and Kennedy who end up "betraying" Republicans by gradually turning moderate-to-liberal during their terms.
No R27 he is a hateful old troll who thinks that men living before the age of indoor plumbing, rapid communication and automatic weaponry; who defended slavery, counted black men (and only men) as 3/5ths of a white man, who probably would not have had the leisure to intellectualize hypocritically about the all men being created equal without their human chattel, wrote something in stone that is as innerrant as any fundie believes the Bible to be.
Foolishness and hate. That is Scalia. The fact that he eloquently states his fucking stupid positions does not make him intelligent.
Scalia must be intellectually challenged or intellectually dishonest to articulate the idea that the majority's opinions of what defines "morality" is enough for the state to curtail individual liberty and to discriminate against a class of citizens.
In Scalia's case, he is incapable of seeing beyond his own religious convictions. He has been unable (or unwilling) to interpret the Constitution from a position of religious neutrality, as his oath of office requires.
The reason he insists on defending the absurd and simplistic "original intent" argument is that it offers cover for his real agenda. He can't say "I decide cases based on my best understanding of what the Holy Father wants." So a guess at the opinions of a bunch of 18th Century rich white guys will have to do.
His hypocrisy is so easy to see. He's for state's rights unless the state wants to legalize medical marijuana or allow same-sex marriage. He's for judicial restraint until he has the opportunity to declare laws unconstitutional and overturn recent precedents.
History will not be kind to this man.
Scalia has Romans in mind when he said that - all right-wing Christians know exactly what he's signalling. He's subtly referencing the death penalty for gays.
Scalia has no "religious convictions." He's just a plain old fashioned crook. I think if we investigate his resume, we will find it to be enirely fictitious.
You don't suppose anyone has looked into his resume before, R46? Are you familiar with the Supreme Court?
Are you familiar with the fact that 99% of all our top officials have some fakery on their resume? And that Scalia has probably faked his at every transition in his life?
Scalia has twice gone through Senate confirmations. That entails a background check by the FBI. He is also a controversial figure with many enemies. The idea that his resume has been faked but no one noticed is preposterous.
he is still a huge asshole though.
[quote]The idea that his resume has been faked but no one noticed is preposterous.
Of course it is, but that won't stop our rabid conspiracy-theorist trolls from speculating nonetheless.
I also believe in Supreme Court term limits. The bottom line is I don't want anyone from my father's generation who have not kept current with the times making laws that will affect me for the next 50 years.
Of course he's going to defend those writings. After all, he wrote them.
At least he concedes that his comparisons between homosexuality and murder, incest and bestiality were rhetorically reductio ad absurdum; meaning that he himself notes that the analogy was an absurd one to make a legal point, a provocative and vile one, true, but at least he acknowledges that the absurdity of the rhetoric for mere effect.
That's some modest degree of cold comfort, of course, but it's something.
Read the link and badger your federal Representatives and Senators.
Don't worry too much about this guy. He's an outsider, looked down upon by the ruling elite. He'll always have a backwards peasant outlook. It's ingrained in his DNA. A should be school janitor that sought higher education and got lucky. Just look at him!
he is vile.
Frank Conniff (from MST3K) tweeted this:
"Justice Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder in an opinion he just issued in the case of Douchebag v Reality."
Petition to unseat the idiot, Scalia is incompetent.
He and pubic hair on coke guy too.
[quote]What body has checks and balances over them?
Hmm, let's see. The President nominates new Justice to replace those who retire (or sometimes die). Those nominations have to confirmed by the Senate.
As to a check on decisions of the Court, in some cases--depending on how the cases are decided-- Congress can pass new legislation to address ("correct") specific problems under the law. The Lily Ledbetter Act, which fixed a problem with prior equal-pay law as interpreted by the Supremes, is a fine example.
Of course neither Congress nor the President can singlehandedly change the Constitution, or even alter the Court's interpretation of it; the amendment process is long and difficult by design.
Scalia is Paul Sorvino's greatest role. Terrifying, but with an irresistible comic undercurrent.
I positively hope R26 dies of a heart attack very soon.
Scalia has no place on a judicious board, let alone a supreme. Isn't there numerous petitions to unseat this mentally deprived loon?
R64, you can't remove a Supreme Court justice by a fucking *petition*. The ONLY way to remove ANY federal judge is via trial in the Senate, and Scalia has done nothing whatsoever to merit one (and no, disagreement with his opinions does not count at all).
Let it go, hon. Let it go.
R66, a petition will start the process.
Comparing sexuality to murder is more than an opinion. Especially for a judge.
Now that I've signed it, I'll let it go, siss.
[quote]R66, a petition will start the process.
No, it won't. Not even remotely. But if it helps you feel better to sign an utterly meaningless document, go for it, I guess. Just don't use it as any semblance of how the real world actually works, considering Scalia was appointed by *Reagan* 25 years ago, for fuck's sake.
Did we know that Scalia's son was a priest involved in a catholic "pray the gay away" group?