Wait, aren’t you the guy the “appointed” w as president? He ruined the country.
And you’re worried about someone else’s marriage??
Just can’t make this b/s up!
That’s essentially my point. To buttress his dissent in the Obergefell case, Scalia repeated references foreign legal tradition - i.e. the history of SSM jurisprudence in countries around the world. He doesn’t have many other legs on which to stand- textualism doesn’t help, because there’s no constitutional statute that explicitly limits marriage to heterosexual couples. Absent that text, Scalia is left grasping at straws, which is why he starts rambling about ancient Greece, contemporary Holland, and the 20-odd countries with SSM laws. It’s a bipolar and hypocritical approach to deciding cases.
1 Like
Oh, Tony’s not a textualist, he’s an Originalist. Originalists don’t believe the words have literal meaning. They believe that the words only mean what they would have meant to people, and we’re mostly talking about white male people, at the time they were adopted. The Bill of Rights only means what it would have meant to a bunch of white rich guys, about a third to a half of whom were slaveowners and most of the rest of whom believed slavery wasn’t a wrong that was sufficiently serious to blow up the Union over. The 14th Amendment only means what it would have meant to 19th Century white guys.
The underlying sentiment is intellectually defensible. The concern is that if we let the meaning of the words drift over time and apply them as a modern person would understand them so that it adapts to societal change, that’s a standard that’s capable of cynical manipulation by a politically activist judiciary to make it mean whatever they want it to mean, which, ultimately is tantamount to having no Constitution at all.
But the fact that the proposed cure for that imagined ill, which entails a judge somehow putting himself into the imaginary head of an imaginary typical person of a certain social class and standing of another century, is even more susceptible to the exact same manipulation they purport to be opposing is, of course, met with with the “nyuh-uh!” that is the mark of the intellectual honest and integrity of the truly thoughtful, anti partisan, objective jurist.
4 Likes
Is (s)he running (;-)) for president (of what)?
Equal protection under the law is SOOOOOO extreme.
1 Like
“Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that,” Scalia said, according to the AP. “I worry about a Court that’s headed in that direction.”
Religious beliefs don’t dictate Constitutional, Civil Rights. Never have, never will.
Very good point - and thank you for correcting me. My last constitutional law class was evidently a lot longer ago than I realized!
1 Like
I had the benefit of going to law school at precisely the time the Federalist Society poison was really beginning to circulate.
Sadly, I also went to school back when Scalia used to write opinions that were entertaining, intellectually coherent and usually intellectually honest rather than engaging in raw activism and complaining that that’s what everyone who opposed him was doing.
2 Likes
Fuck you, Tony.
That’s my guess.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
I’m no lawyer but this was pretty easy to find.
I think Fat Tony lies.
Who’s butt is he after licking ?
Oh just die already.
Funny how it was HIS majority that voted to grant same sex marriages. Thing is that IF he was subject to re-election he’d probably lose…
Are you allowed to be an Oathkeeper and a Supreme Court Justice at the same time?
What is extreme to one man is obvious to the next, Justice Scalia.
He is not an idiot. He is the epitome of the activist judge. He doesn’t want equal marriage, so it is the most extreme thing. He wants corporate power, so declaring a corporation a person that can have religious beliefs is not extreme at all. He is essentially a propagandist.
But, but…Judge Scalia is an Opus Dei catholic. Doesn’t that mean he’s putting his head into an imaginary being’s all the time? And, gee, they always agree with him, don’t they? Seriously, what’s the chance that he’s getting senile? Have we ever has a (medically) demented member of SCOTUS?
1 Like
When you read Shakespeare you really need a lot of explanations of meanings of words, which have drifted over the centuries. The Constitution may eventually be like that. Knowing the meaning of words to the writers is necessary. So is the context. And once you understand the meaning, it seems to me that you have to apply the ideas to today’s context and understanding. This is the part he doesn’t like.
2 Likes
Have you read his Obergefell dissent? It’s really wacky, and has little to do with referencing settled case law. It’s a huge bunch of pontificating about feelings and all brand of minutia. I was shocked at how deranged it sounded.
1 Like