KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

Worst Supreme Justice EVER

Lois · 2966

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
on: June 15, 2015, 02:22:29 AM
This article goes after everyone, and is a bit to much an anti-religious rant for me.  However, I do agree that Scalia is unfit to serve.   He does not know how to follow the law and he lets his mythology get in the way of following our Constitution.

Antonin Scalia is unfit to serve: A justice who rejects science and the law for religion is of unsound mind
The justice claims to be an originalist, but his real loyalty is to religion and a phony man in the sky
JEFFREY TAYLER

Readers of this column already know that faith-derangement syndrome has stricken the highest levels of the executive branch of government, afflicting President Obama and virtually all his potential successors. Now we have evidence that it has spread to the top organ of the judiciary, the Supreme Court.

But first, a clarification. Sufferers of faith-derangement syndrome (FDS) exhibit the following symptoms: unshakable belief in the veracity of manifest absurdities detailed in ancient texts regarding the origins of the cosmos and life on earth; a determination to disseminate said absurdities in educational institutions and via the media; a propensity to enjoin and even enforce (at times using violence) obedience to regulations stipulated in said ancient texts, regardless of their suitability for contemporary circumstances; the conviction that an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient authority (commonly referred to as “God”) directs the course of human and natural events, is vulnerable to propitiation and blandishments, and monitors individual human behavior, including thought processes, with an especially prurient interest in sexual activity.

Secondary symptoms exhibited by sufferers of FDS comprise feelings of righteousness and sensations of displeasure, even outrage, when collocutors question, reject or refute the espousal of said absurdities. Tertiary symptoms, often present among individuals self-classifying as “evangelicals”: Duggar-esque hairdos and Tammy Bakker-ian makeup, preternaturally sunny dispositions and pedophiliac tendencies, sartorial ineptitude and obesity.

Back to FDS and the Supreme Court. Last week, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a commencement speech at an all-girls Catholic High School in Bethesda, Maryland. He warned the assembled, “You should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented. Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so” – sic, italics mine – “and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.”

At least one “challenge” (anthropogenic global warming) is indeed unprecedented, and scientifically demonstrated, and, considering the threat it poses to humanity, not something to ho-hum about.  But what is science to a man suffering from faith-derangement syndrome? Not much.

Arguably one of the most visible members of the nine-member body charged with the decisive resolution of our republic’s most contentious legal matters, Scalia confronts us with a sui generis challenge of great urgency: how to go about declaring a magistrate appointed for life of unsound mind and thus unfit to serve? Scalia rejects the fact of evolution – the foundation of modern biology – in favor of the opening chapter of a compendium of cockamamie fables concocted by obscure humans in a particularly dark age, evidence that his faculty of reason has suffered the debilitating impairment associated with acute FDS. He therefore cannot be relied upon to adjudicate without prejudice and should be removed from the bench henceforth.

We have even more damning evidence of Justice Scalia’s FDS-related impairment, and it came to my attention thanks to the website of the New Civil Rights Movement. A couple of years ago, Scalia nonplussed a contributing editor at New York magazine, Jennifer Senior, who made the understandable mistake of assuming that the Harvard-educated SCOTUS potentate lived in the real world, and not in a phantasmagorical realm of djinns and genies and junk cosmogony.

Senior interviewed Scalia for her magazine. She asked for his opinion of the pope. Scalia reacted with untoward prickliness, saying he would not “run down … the Vicar of Christ.” Nothing surprising, really. A Reagan-era appointee, Scalia has long been known for his staunch Roman Catholicism.

But then the interview took a comic, almost sinister turn.  Senior asked Scalia about homosexuality. Though professing to be “not a hater of homosexuals at all,” he said that he accepted “Catholic teaching that it’s wrong.” She pressed him to evaluate how such a position will look to people 50 years from now. He responded, “I have never been custodian of my legacy. When I’m dead and gone, I’ll either be sublimely happy or terribly unhappy.”

“You believe in heaven and hell?”

“Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell?”

No, Senior answered, she did not. Scalia then proffered an entirely serious aside about Judas Iscariot’s current location in the hereafter, prompting an uncomfortable Senior to remark, “Can we talk about your drafting process?”

No. Here Scalia’s FDS recrudesced in full. He leaned toward her and whispered, surely with eyes ablaze, “I even believe in the Devil  …  he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.”

By this time, Senior must have been scanning the room for the emergency exit. But she pulled herself together. “Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?”

Scalia replied, “You know, it is curious.  In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things.  He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot.  And that doesn’t happen very much anymore …  because he’s smart.”  Scalia attributed the spread of atheism to Satan, who was “getting people not to believe in him or in God.  He’s much more successful that way.”  Satan had, in Scalia’s estimation, become “wilier,” which explained “why there’s not demonic possession all over the place.”

One can only imagine the look of bug-eyed incredulity on poor Senior’s face.  Scalia certainly noticed it.

“You’re looking at me as though I’m weird,” he declared. “My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil?  I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil!  It’s in the Gospels!  You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil!  Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.”

Clearly a traveler in circles of folks far saner than six out of 10 Americans, Senior nevertheless observed the societal convention according to which we are to keep calm, nod and act normal when victims of FDS solemnly utter their characteristically rank inanities.  She responded, “I hope you weren’t sensing contempt from me.  It wasn’t your belief that surprised me so much as how boldly you expressed it.”

Scalia replied, “I was offended by that. I really was.”

Oh really, Justice Scalia?  You were offended?  You had just committed an outrage against reason, voicing belief in Beelzebub, a comic-book bugaboo the pedophile pulpiteers of your creed have deployed to warp the minds of their credulous “flocks” for two millennia.  You had just declared yourself a biblical literalist, and therefore an enemy of historical fact.  Your position on the Beelzebub question in particular gives reason to dread how your court will rule if, as seems inevitable, a test case reaches your bench involving one of the many Religious Freedom Restoration Acts disgracing the legal codes of far too many states. You managed all this, and you are offended?

Justice Scalia, to call your worldview Neanderthalic would be an understatement. It would also probably be inaccurate, given that you surely hold that Neanderthals never existed.  The Lord, you might say, just stashed those pesky fossils underground to test our faith.

Scalia’s peevish demoniac harangue clearly had its roots in the past decade or so of New Atheist assertiveness. The faithful sense the mounting impatience among rationalists with beliefs that are not just wrong, they are, especially when influencing public policy, education and legislation, dangerous and regressive.

Battered by the rising winds of godlessness, the devotees of an invisible celestial tyrant (or those cynically pandering to such dullards) are gearing up for a fight. Republican presidential candidate (and ordained Southern Baptist minister) Mike Huckabee does not “necessarily” accept Darwinian theory, but has allowed that “if anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.”  (We are not only descended from primates, we are primates.)  His colleague Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker refuses to say what he believes, though he does “think God created the Earth.”  Their rival, the neurosurgeon Ben Carson, has opined that, “Somebody says [the human brain] came from a slime pit full of promiscuous biochemicals?  I don’t think so.” No? Take a refresher course in biology and see how.

Faith-addled intrusions into public life extend beyond denying the fact of evolution. Another Republican contender for the presidency, Rick Santorum, has admonished the pope for his forthright stance on climate change, but urged Catholics to concentrate on “what they are really good at, which is theology and morality.”

Morality? Is Santorum making a sick joke?  Pope Francis has continued the long-standing policy of his predecessors of sheltering child rapists, no matter what P.R. stunts he mounts purporting to show otherwise.  Curiously, the pope recently felt compelled to ask atheists to send him “good vibrations.”  What we ought to do is send in the vice squad.  Perhaps it would turn up more than the mere hundred thousand child porn videos and photographs the Vatican’s own (oxymoronically named) promoter of justice reportedly discovered on the computer of accused child rapist and former Archbishop Josef Wesolowski.  We might then send representatives to the United Nations demanding it strip the Vatican of the statehood granted it by Mussolini’s fascist Italy in the 1929 Lateran Treaty.  And we should certainly send out notice that the votaries of the bizarre Catholic cult are to stay well away from our children.

The current Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, even though as a child she claims that she “talked with God, walked with God, ate, studied and argued with God,” gives us less reason to fear than do her Republican brethren in Christ.  ”Schools,” she has said, “may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about the Bible or other scripture in the teaching of history or literature, for example.”  Fair enough. She has every (constitutionally guaranteed) right to her faith, and the Bible, key to understanding Western civilization, needs to be studied.

Most of us have heard Christians talk of “living their faith.” I challenge them – and I’m addressing Justice Scalia, Santorum, et al. — to really do it.  To all who profess to believe in the Genesis version of our species’ origins, and disbelieve the fact of evolution: go right ahead, live your faith for real.  Since the concept of evolution through natural selection forms the basis for modern biology (without which modern medicine would not exist), go ahead, renounce visits to all doctors who have graduated from accredited Western medical schools. Cease use of all medications developed post-1859, the year Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species.” Divest from all pharmaceutical companies producing medication developed by researchers with biological backgrounds. Picket hospitals and clinics dispensing such medication or employing graduates of accredited medical and nursing schools. Withdraw your children, or dematriculate yourselves, from any educational institution teaching biology.

Tough out the rising rate of disease and death to come among your ranks! Your diminishing numbers will positively affect electoral results nationwide.  True, we rationalists will have less to guffaw about, and fewer targets for satire and outright ridicule, but this is a price we are willing to pay.

Back to Scalia. Justice Scalia, until you’ve cured yourself of your FDS, please spare us your gaga musings about the history of humankind, desist from imposing your obscurantist dogma on impressionable young minds, and interpret the law in accordance with how the secularist Founding Fathers conceived it. You profess to be, after all, an originalist.

Better yet, Justice Scalia, resign.



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #1 on: June 15, 2015, 08:11:13 AM
Liberals don't like a conservative justice? I am shocked.



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #2 on: June 15, 2015, 01:56:18 PM
No, we just don't like a justice who can't deliberate on the law using good judgement, precedence and the law as it was written.

That he can't divorce himself of his religious preferences or political leanings long enough to provide an objectivity required of him is very much exactly what the conservatives ask of all appointees, is disgusting. That he can't seem to understand the basics of law brings into question his competence among other lawyers, as toe has stated.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,768
    • Woos/Boos: +392/-10
    • Gender: Female
Reply #3 on: June 15, 2015, 02:05:03 PM
Just be thankful he's not leaning toward "Shari Law".
 :D
Love,
Liz



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #4 on: June 15, 2015, 02:23:26 PM
http://www.biography.com/people/antonin-scalia-9473091#supreme-court-justice

Worth a read for anyone interested in Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, including his family, upbringing, scholarly achievement over his lifetime, and views on various cases, versus personal opinions he expresses from time to time.

Gives some context to how he came to be where he is, that is lacking in Mr. Tayler's leftist screed, which is just a global warming hit piece, with a heavy dose of anti-Catholicism bigotry tossed in, cause that is what Jeffrey Tayler does, writing from his Moscow home base.

Justice Scalia took his Oath of Office on September 26, 1986, following his unanimous United States Senate vote for Confirmation.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2015, 02:29:00 PM by joan1984 »

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #5 on: June 15, 2015, 03:11:01 PM

Recognized and accepted among legal practitioners and scholars to be the worst on SCOTUS, and perhaps the worst ever.



I'm glad you qualified "worst ever" with "perhaps," because the worst SCOTUS justice was, hands down, Roger Taney, author of what is near-universally considered to be the worst SCOTUS decision ever, Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Others I'd place on this list include:

Samuel Chase, who holds the dubious distinction of being the only SCOTUS justice ever to be impeached, chiefly due to his consistent -- and admitted -- bias.

James McReynolds, who was proudly and openly antisemitic. When Louis Brandies became the first Jewish person appointed to SCOTUS, McReynolds refused to even speak to him. And McReynolds held subsequent Jewish appointees Benjamin Cardozo and Felix Frankfurter in similar contempt.

Melville Fuller, the extremity of whose religious views makes Scalia look like an agnostic. In the years prior to his appointment to SCOTUS, Fuller descirbed the Emancipation Proclamation as "calculated to bring shame, disgrace and eternal infamy upon the nation," and, as a delegate to the Illinois constitutional convention in 1862, he agitated for a provision prohibiting black men and women from settling in the state or voting in its elections.

Finally, I'd give a dishonorable mention to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes is, of course, widely considered to be one the the greatest SCOTUS justices in U.S. history. But his advocacy in favor of the infamous Buck v. Bell decision, which ranks with Dred Scott as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in U.S. history, paved the way for the forced sterilization, for eugenics purposes, of those individuals deemed by the state to be incapable of producing socially viable children. As Holmes put it in his majority opinion, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #6 on: June 15, 2015, 04:45:52 PM

As Holmes put it in his majority opinion, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."


Perhaps my most frequently quoted SCOTUS opinion.  Not in favor of eugenics, of course, but rather against people who make the same mistakes over and over again, "because that's how we've always done it."



True. But, for me, the reference to the Eugenics Movement -- one of the most horrifying and little known chapters in U.S. history -- remains inescapable.

After all, as a result of this SCOTUS decision, Carrie Buck, along with as many as 50,000 other Americans, were forcibly -- and permanently -- sterilized.

And, without even slightly Godwinizing, you can draw a straight line from the American Eugenics Movement to the Nazi plan for creating a master race, which culminated in the Holocaust.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #7 on: June 15, 2015, 05:13:17 PM
The best SC justices are the ones we agree with, the worst are the ones we disagree with.

There are 4 justices that lean conservative, 4 that lean liberal, 1 that sits the fence.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #8 on: June 15, 2015, 07:57:37 PM

The best SC justices are the ones we agree with, the worst are the ones we disagree with.



That's a pretty fair assessment...




"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #9 on: June 17, 2015, 06:39:57 AM
Except we depend on our court system to follow the rule of law, not the rule of the bible.



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #10 on: June 17, 2015, 06:59:02 AM
Absolutely. Support your claim, when do you believe that Scalia has ruled on faith, not law? Be specific please.



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #11 on: June 17, 2015, 04:19:34 PM
Quote
"The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the 'central holding.' It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version. On stare decisis (adhering to judicial precedent): Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (dissenting).

Also this interview/speech, read all of it, explains his position well. It is a well founded one and hard to disagree with even if you don't like him (mostly because he is a conservative you disagree with):

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wl1997.htm

Seems like he thought he supported stare decisis more then the majority opinion. He is an originalist, which is another way of saying that he believes that the Constitution means what it says. The opposing position, largely a liberal one, is that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be reinterpreted to mean whatever you like it to mean.

That aside, Lois has made the claim twice that Scalia does not legislate based on the law but on his personal religious beliefs. I would like him to support that claim.

I am new to these boards, is it customary here to expect people to support their claims or are we more lax here?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 04:21:17 PM by thetaxmancometh »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #12 on: June 18, 2015, 05:03:56 PM
Absolutely. Support your claim, when do you believe that Scalia has ruled on faith, not law? Be specific please.

I have to head for work and don't have the time, but knock yourself out!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Scalia



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #13 on: June 18, 2015, 05:26:07 PM
Thanks, you made the claim, I expect that you will be the one to support it..... or retract it. I can wait.



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #14 on: June 19, 2015, 06:05:46 AM
I retract nothing.  If you wish to prove me wrong, why don't you do some research?



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #15 on: June 19, 2015, 06:53:45 AM
Sorry, you made the claim... you support it. That is what adults do when challenged on their claims, they support them.

Exactly how do you think I can prove a negative anyway?



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #16 on: June 19, 2015, 07:43:19 AM
Times have changed.

Originalists would also hold that blacks count as 3/5ths of person.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #17 on: June 19, 2015, 07:56:04 AM
I think you are forgetting a few amendments? 13,14, and 15 to be exact. Maybe we can reinterpret the 2nd amendment to be talking about biological arms attached to hands?!??! Then we can ban all guns! YAY! LOL. Logically a thing means what it says when it was written.

If you want to change the Constitution then I am certainly open for that. There are ways to do it and having a judge see something in the Constitution that isn't there (excepting penumbras) is not any of the ways that are acceptable.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 07:59:16 AM by thetaxmancometh »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #18 on: June 19, 2015, 07:58:47 AM
Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality

Justice Antonin Scalia has written that "it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings." Judging by the things he has said in court or written in his legal opinions about gays and lesbians, he doesn't really mean it.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's ban on same-sex marriage are constitutional. Despite Scalia's long public history of expressing revulsion and contempt for gays and lesbians, on the subject of whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry, he is among the nine people whose opinions will really matter. Here are the lowlights of Scalia's anti-gay comments:

"Flagpole Sitting"

What's a little frat-boy humor between justices? In 2003, during oral arguments in Lawrence v. Texas, the case challenging a Texas law that criminalized homosexual sex, Scalia came up with a tasteless analogy to illustrate the issue. "[S ]uppose all the States had laws against flagpole sitting at one time, you know, there was a time when it was a popular thing and probably annoyed a lot of communities, and then almost all of them repealed those laws," Scalia asked the attorney fighting the Texas law. "Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?"

Let's throw gay people in jail because some people don't like them

In his dissent in Lawrence, Scalia argued that moral objections to homosexuality were sufficient justification for criminalizing gay sex. "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home," he wrote. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive." Some people think obesity is immoral and destructive—perhaps New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg should have imprisoned people who drink sugary sodas rather than trying to limit the size of their cups.

Laws banning homosexual sex are like laws banning murder

In his dissent in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans, which challenged Colorado's ban on any local jurisdictions outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Scalia brought out an analogy that he's used to attack liberals and supporters of LGBT rights for years since. "Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings," Scalia wrote, in the classic prebuttal phrasing of someone about to say something ludicrous. "But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]" It's true that people generally disapprove of murder, but there's more going on in laws banning murder than mere disfavor—the rights of the person being murdered, for example.

Laws banning homosexual sex are like laws banning murder

In his dissent in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans, which challenged Colorado's ban on any local jurisdictions outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Scalia brought out an analogy that he's used to attack liberals and supporters of LGBT rights for years since. "Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings," Scalia wrote, in the classic prebuttal phrasing of someone about to say something ludicrous. "But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]" It's true that people generally disapprove of murder, but there's more going on in laws banning murder than mere disfavor—the rights of the person being murdered, for example.

First they came for the Cubs haters...

Scalia's dissent in Romer is a long lament over the supposed "special rights" being granted to people on the basis of sexual orientation. In one section, he complains that banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring amounts to granting gays and lesbians special treatment that Republicans, adulterers, and Cubs haters don't get. He writes "[A job] interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs."

Have gays and lesbians tried NOT having homosexual sex?

During oral arguments in Lawrence, the attorney challenging the Texas law argued that it was "fundamentally illogical" for straight people to be able to have non-procreative sex without being harassed by the state while same-sex couples did not have the right to be "free from a law that says you can't have any sexual intimacy at all." But Scalia pointed out that gays and lesbians could just have sex with people of the opposite sex instead. "It doesn't say you can't have—you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." Later on in his dissent, Scalia argued that Americans' constitutional right to equal protection under the law wasn't violated by the Texas law for that reason. "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." That should sound familiar: It's the same argument defenders of bans on interracial marriage used to make, arguing that the bans were constitutional because they affected whites and blacks equally.

Scalia has been on a tear lately, calling the Voting Rights Act a "racial entitlement" and ripping into the president in a dissent on Arizona's harsh anti-immigration law in the middle of an election season. But when it comes to LGBT rights, he's been off the rails for a long time.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 628
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #19 on: June 19, 2015, 08:11:19 AM
Edit to say "This was a little more snarky then I meant (only the first sentence but still), my apologies for that. I won't edit it to smooth it down cause I find that a little dishonest, but I try to respond to snark with snark and your last post wasn't snarky to me. My apologies"

------------------------

At least you attempted to support your claims and I am all for encouraging that. I would urge you to take up one issue at a time so I will only take a quick swipe at this until you support your claim that he rules based on religion, not on the law.

First off, just so everyone knows, Scalia voted "No" on DOMA because he believes it a states rights issue. He was quite clear in his dissent on that point. He was correct in his decision, imo. Keep in mind that I do not support state sponsored gay marriage... nor do I support state sponsored hetero marriage. Marriage is a religious term and should never have been appropriated by the state. Having state sponsored civil unions might make sense (I might argue otherwise), but those unions shouldn't be confused with marriage and I would be willing to entertain that they should be for lots of different scenarios... from spinster sisters living together to cults to polyamorous relationships.

Now, will you please address your original point that he rules based on religion, not law. Keep in mind that every member of the SC is religious, either jewish or roman catholic.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 08:28:48 AM by thetaxmancometh »