Discussion for article #240957
“which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens”
So many angles to attack this from…separation of church and state, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, Scalia is an effin idiot
I don’t know where to begin
12 Likes
blasting the five majority judges for a "constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine."
Now how would he know about that ? ? — Oh… nevermind —
1 Like
That ruling came from a thorough understanding of the Constitution and how its been interpreted over the last century.
You’re blathering complaints? They come from a willful inaccurate misrepresenting of the Constitution and how its been interpreted over the last century, and then used to support your anti-constitutional religious doctrine.
Well, either that, your you’re just a sociopathic dick.
2 Likes
And he can’t articulate any rationale for those statements without using pure applesauce and jiggery-pokery.
6 Likes
Suck it, Tony.
2 Likes
1 / Given this diatribe, Scalia needs to remind us why fornication, adultery, divorce and remarriage are legal and not worthy of being “contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens” in the exact same way. American Exceptionalism? Because red staters do these things a lot? Because Ronald Reagan did them?
2 / Once a society legally allows gay couples to make or adopt children, the marriage part seems fairly obvious. Family Courts are adjudicating this stuff all of the time. Scalia is silent on this issue, of course.
3 / Scalia reminds us of Humpty Dumpty when he says “'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
4 Likes
How about just this- the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, and the second that Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage the Constitution made it legal in every state.
Careful with the blood pressure, Judge Whiner. Maybe drop a few pounds, add a little exercise? If you can no longer serve, President Obama has an opening to fill.
When fed through the translatorbot, the speech reads–
“It’s thoughtful deliberation when we do it and an extreme example of judicial overreach when they do it…WWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!”
1 Like
TPM:
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday blasted the court’s June ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, describing the decision as “extreme,” according to the Associated Press.
Damn, Nino, that was three months ago, and you’re still harping on it like a guy in bar saying “Oh, and another thing…” long after the people he was arguing with went home.
6 Likes
Let it go, Tony, you are acting "extreme!"
Scalia has long since abdicated whatever position of authority he thought he had as the court’s protector of textualism. Time and time again, he’s seen fit to stray from the literal interpretation of the constitution whenever it’s suited him. What’s worse, he’s rampant hypocrisy has begun to ooze into other areas of his jurisprudence. Look no further than the Obergefell decision itself. Multiple times throughout his dissent, Scalia mentions the nascence of gay marriage in countries around the world - remarking that no nation saw fit to legalize it until Holland in 2001. Global legal precedent formed one of the central bases of his argument! And then, literally that same week, Scalia gave a speech eviscerating his fellow justices for…citing global legal precedent:
Foreign laws can “never, never be relevant to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution,” Justice Scalia said during a luncheon speech Friday at George Mason University School of Law." - Law360
If there’s a danger to this country, it’s not jurists who believe in a living constitution. It’s jurists who see fit to tie themselves in pretzels finding ways to justify their ends.
2 Likes
I recall him telling folks who criticized the 2000 election decision that put GW Bush in as President that we should “Just get over it!”. Et tu?
5 Likes
…so we again hear from the Justice who, with his decent ing the Defense of Marriage case paved the way for the Gay Mariage case.
Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
And then his head exploded from ironic overload.
If this case was decided wrongly then so was Loving v. Virginia.
1 Like
But if the text is all there is, why would Scala worry about affects on “meaning” and “relevancy” from any source including the bible?
Scalia always has a lot of opinions, doesn’t he? Know what he doesn’t have?
Any logic or reasoning to back up those opinions. The man seems to think bombast is an argument unto itself.
1 Like