Discussion for article #233255
Scalia: ‘Don’t Paint Me As Anti-Gay’
Old fool is a better description.
It has been said that there is no fool like an old fool, except a young fool.
But the young fool has first to grow up to be an old fool to realize
what a damn fool he was when he was a young fool.
~Harold MacMillan
Hmm. Upon consideration?
Bigoted old fool.
jw1
7 Likes
“I don’t have any public views on any of those things,” Scalia said, according to the Blade. “The point is, who decides? Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country, or is it a matter left to the people?”
It’s not like that’s ever held you back before, Tony 
8 Likes
“. . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (14th Amendment)
Unless Justice Scalia refuses to define LGBT individuals as “persons,” there is clearly text in the Constitution protecting their rights, including the right to the equal protections accorded people who are married.
21 Likes
Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country
Sure, don’t paint him as anti-gay, but letting gays marry would be an imposition, and marriage equality is somehow outside the equal protection clause and other protections for individual rights.
3 Likes
“I don’t have any public views on any of those things,” Scalia said
What are his private views?
8 Likes
We Hate Him Just the Way He Is…
Don’t go trying some new fashion
Don’t change the color of your hair
You always have my unspoken passion
Though I might not seem to care…
6 Likes
If you don’t want to be seen as homophobic and anti-abortion, perhaps you should stop being homophobic and anit-abortion.
17 Likes
He would have “let the states decide” on anti-miscegenation laws. I guarantee it.
8 Likes
No has to. He’s already done that for them.
“Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country, or is it a matter left to the people?”
Sounds okay until you realize that he interprets “the people” not as “the people directly involved” but rather as the results of red-state elections.
Furthermore: after Bush v Gore, fck this guy’s pretense that as a Justice, he’s ever done anything besides stuck his big fat thumb on the scales and leaned heavily.
12 Likes
It is so unfortunate that our Founding Fathers didn’t even think ahead 200 years. Clearly these guys should have known these things would become an issue for Tony. They blew this off because EVERBODY knows there were no homosexuals 200 years ago. The homosexuals started their movement in 1980 after being exposed to the dirty hippies. On top of that, NO woman ever had or tried to get an abortion until the 1970’s. Once again, the dirty hippies made the women go crazy.
5 Likes
Scalia: ‘Don’t paint me as anti-gay.’
No, Antonin. You have done it so well for us.
Whenever you hacks want to block something it is all states rights, states rights, states rights. F that.
“There is no red America, there is no blue America there is the United States of America.”
BO
4 Likes
Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country, or is it a matter left to the people?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, will decide.
Now retire, asshat.
3 Likes
Hopefully he views his privates only in chambers.
3 Likes
I’m not anti-gay. I’m pro-straight.
4 Likes
Well said, caltg!
(Handing you a mic so you can triumphantly drop it and walk away.)
1 Like
I’m guessing that there would be a whole lot more bigotry, killing in the name of religion, and discrimination if the only criteria for making laws outlawing such things was whether or not they were mentioned in the Constitution. I won’t paint him as being anti-gay, although he undoubtedly is, I’ll just paint him as being an idiot…make that a bigoted idiot in a position to use that to punish others.
Delusional.
Does this guy realize he is referring to himself?
2 Likes
I don’t want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
1 Like