HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Confronted by NJ Princeto...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:12 PM

Confronted by NJ Princeton student, Scalia defends arguments that strike some as anti-gay

Source: Associated Press

PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and 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.


Read more: http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-scalia-princeton-20121210,0,7317180.story

84 replies, 10228 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Confronted by NJ Princeton student, Scalia defends arguments that strike some as anti-gay (Original post)
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 OP
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #1
marmar Dec 2012 #2
HankyDub Dec 2012 #7
CanonRay Dec 2012 #26
Dustlawyer Dec 2012 #3
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #5
msanthrope Dec 2012 #9
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #4
aquart Dec 2012 #8
olegramps Dec 2012 #25
mountain grammy Dec 2012 #17
left on green only Dec 2012 #18
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #20
former9thward Dec 2012 #29
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #30
ellisonz Dec 2012 #6
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #12
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #27
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #13
ellisonz Dec 2012 #15
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #10
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #11
SoapBox Dec 2012 #16
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #23
Paladin Dec 2012 #24
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #41
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #34
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #40
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #43
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #44
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #45
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #47
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #48
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #55
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #59
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #60
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #62
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #63
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #65
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #66
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #70
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #72
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #77
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #74
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #56
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #61
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #64
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #67
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #68
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #69
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #71
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #73
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #76
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #78
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #79
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #81
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #82
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #80
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #83
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #84
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #75
Politicub Dec 2012 #51
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #54
It-Gets-Better Dec 2012 #14
elleng Dec 2012 #19
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #35
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #36
Socal31 Dec 2012 #21
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #28
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #37
Politicub Dec 2012 #52
DallasNE Dec 2012 #22
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #31
randomtagger Dec 2012 #33
LineReply f
randomtagger Dec 2012 #32
The Wizard Dec 2012 #38
wordpix Dec 2012 #46
The Wizard Dec 2012 #49
morningfog Dec 2012 #39
primavera Dec 2012 #42
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #50
Politicub Dec 2012 #53
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #57
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #58

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:17 PM

1. K&R !!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:21 PM

2. Preview of his Prop 8 vote?

nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:21 PM

7. As if we needed one...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:56 AM

26. His Prop 8 vote is a given

The Constitution means whatever the hell he wants it to mean at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:45 PM

3. Well it seems that a majority of citizens no longer think sodomy is immoral. Scalia, you

Shite head, you need to experience it yourself! He has never heard of the separation of church and state. He needs to go back and read that dead document to see what it says about how we are all equal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:58 PM

5. He Used The Same BS Argument in Lawrence v. Texas

He Used The Same BS Argument in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick.

One of the proudest things I ever did was to protest in civil disobedience at the Supreme Court the Bowers ruling. To this day, there has never been a larger civil disobedience action at the Supreme Court. Over 800 people got arrested.

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Bowers would be overturned. Thank goodness it was.

Scalia actually comments in his dissent that the Lawrence case would give license for the state to recognize gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:30 PM

9. That Lawrence dissent is a fitting Scalia memorial. I hope to intone it

over his gravestone and laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:49 PM

4. "Quack! Quack!"



The man is a partisan hack and an embarrassment to the court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:28 PM

8. Gosh, I hope that arthritis isn't horribly, achingly, endlessly painful.

That hand ain't good for much, is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:50 AM

25. I don't believe that it is caused by arthritis; he has been playing with himself under the gown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:49 PM

17. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:51 PM

18. I think he is saying, "Read between the lines" to America. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:02 AM

20. If I remember correctly, the Democrats did object to his appointment more than token. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:21 PM

29. No, Scalia was confirmed with a 98-0 vote.

He not questioned on his views on controversial subjects. No one wanted to be on the record opposing the first Italian-American to be nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:29 PM

30. So glad the Democrats were looking out for us. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:06 PM

6. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."

Describes my feeling toward the soul of Antonin Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:02 PM

12. Ironically

What's ironic is the fact that he subscribes to theology of Rome who fund anti-gay marriage equality organizations, when quite frankly, Catholics support gay marriage more than the general population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:26 AM

27. Scalia is an alleged Opus Dei memberi. They don't care what most Catholics think.

They are True Believers.


The WASPs that think they run this country are only fooling themselves, the real power in our government looks to Rome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:24 PM

13. More


'It isn't a living document," Scalia said. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."


His version of the Constitution is dead as is his soul. My Constitution is relevant and alive today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:26 PM

15. Scalia is a dumbass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:45 PM

10. He does have a point. Legislatures make laws on all sorts of things.

Smoking, motorcycle helmets, having health insurance - these things all get legislated. It isn't up to judges to overrule the will of the people as written in laws, assuming the laws don't violate the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:59 PM

11. Difference is NONE of your Examples Are People

Gay people are NOT a behavior.

We stopped being a 'behavior' when we became subjected to violence and discrimination for how we were born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:38 PM

16. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:26 AM

23. Actually health care is for people. But that's beside the point. The point is...

...that if you want change, you work through legislation to change laws. If you don't like sodomy laws or motorcycle helmet laws or whatever, repeal them. Don't expect our judges to just make up rulings based on their personal preferences.

If judges made rulings based on personal preferences, some of them would be based on justice and what is right - and others would be whatever the judge thinks is right. Better to have them stick to the law and not make stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:36 AM

24. I Think Scalia's Personal Preferences Are Constantly In Play.


He may put on an orignalist show of supposedly filtering things through an eighteenth century lens, but it is his own personal prejudices at work in every decision in which he participates. Short version: He's making things up, and we're suffering because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:07 PM

41. If that's what he's doing he's in the wrong. His job is to interpret the Const, not make stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:34 PM

34. Huh?


It's not about 'personal preferences.'

It's about the law and the Constitution.

Judicial review legally authorizes the courts to throw out any law that is unconstitutional. Oh, and for the record, the Court did throw out so-do-my neighbor laws.

And YES, I do expect the Court to uphold the Constitution. For the record, the Equal Protection clause means I cannot be treated differently than you unless there is a state interest in who I love and sleep with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:06 PM

40. As I said, it is not about personal preferences. Glad you agree.

I'm glad you support courts upholding the Constitution. States make and municipalities make all sorts of laws about lots of moral and health issues, such as smoking, drugs, treatment of animals and yes, sexual issues. Not saying I support all these laws, but thats what lawmaking bodies do - they make laws. If you don't like anti-sodomy laws, get your government to make sodomy legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:14 PM

43. And Guess What Courts Do?

They throw out sodomy laws and any other law unconstitutional.

See our Constitution has a safety net against the oppression of the majority.

Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:26 PM

44. Courts are unreliable. You can't count on them to rule with the law.

That's why we need our legistlatures to make just and good laws. If overreaching legilatures weren't throwing you off the roof, we would not have to rely on court safety nets - that might or might not work. Get it?

Or do you prefer unjust laws and rely on the hope that some unelected judge will save you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:17 PM

45. Right

Tell you what......you go ahead and do that.

I have no voting representative in either the House or the Senate. They are not accountable to me any other DC resident where we are governed and taxed by your government.

The 'morality' of what you consider to be your awe inspiring legislature has served you well. Not so much for me. I'm sure you have a solution for that as well.

Courts serve a legitimate purpose just as legislatures do when the people (all the people) elect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:24 AM

47. DC has no votes because it is in the Constitution. You should move to a place that has reps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:56 AM

48. So Predictable

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Sounds no different than the 'love it or leave' mantra the right espoused in the 60s.

YOU should be fighting to insure ALL citizens have the right to vote. How about let's just deny you the right to vote for living in the US. Arrogance.

PS- There is nothing in the Constitution that does not allow DC citizens to have voting representation in the House and in fact we have had numerous time in the past. The Senate is reserved to two per state. Click on hyperlinks below to learn about your 'democratic republic'.

But alas this is all off topic other than to point out what you don't seem to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:21 PM

55. If you want to have reps in Congress, move. Or we could give most of DC land back to VA and MD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:50 PM

59. Off Topic

I'm sure the British told the colonies the same thing.

PS- I have to sell my property, find a new job and move so I can have the right to have voting representation in Congress on guns or anything else.

Jeez......and they say Republicans try to deny people the right to vote.

Repugnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:57 PM

60. You probably shouldn't have bought in DC.

Yes, it is hard to find a new job and sell a house for a good deal in this economy, but unless you're hundreds of years old, you knew the deal when you moved in. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who put themselves in a situation and then complain about it. Same thing if you moved next to a dairy farm and then were surprised by the smell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:00 PM

62. Repugnant

Put themselves in that situation??????

You don't know me!

You don't know how many generations my house has been in my family.

And what the fck does it matter. I'm a law abiding tax paying citizen.

Guess you just don't like how my representative would vote on gun laws.

Repugnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:22 PM

63. So you're descended from pre-Washington land-owning Southerners, is that your claim?

How very priveleged!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:24 PM

65. What's Your Problem?

I don't like guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:27 PM

66. My problem is uptight Washingtonians who view the world through a narrow lens.

People can disagree with you and not be evil. I wish you could see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:36 PM

70. Right

...and I bet THEY have the right to vote.

The hypocrisy comes from arrogant folks who predicate their decision to support voting representation on whether they support this or that ....gun.....law or whether they live in a part of the country THEY want us to live.

But heh...keep telling yourself I live with narrow lens.

You do realize that DC has the highest percentage of Obama supporters in the country? And more Democrats per capita than any state? So again, what's your problem?

Sounds like you have a problem with Democrats, democracy, our party platform position on guns and our Presidents comments on guns in the second debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:39 PM

72. So you think that states should VOTE on issues and not have judges make up the law, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:54 PM

77. No

I don't think STATES should have the right to vote.

I think people should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:42 PM

74. And you don't live in the lens, you SEE through the narrow lens.

How can you live in a lens?

But I'm sure if you did live in a lens, you'd demand that it have US senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:23 PM

56. You do have the right to vote. But as a US citizen who is not a citizen of a state, no reps for you.

Maybe one of your teachers could explain it to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:57 PM

61. Maybe Someone Should Explain to You

DC has had voting representation in Congress in the past.

Maybe that same teacher should have taught you that we do not live in a democratic republic.

Perhaps you just don't want me to have voting representation in Congress because that representative would vote for strong gun control laws.

And all this time I thought only Republicans were repugnant with their voting suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:24 PM

64. We do live in a republic and one of the things that keeps it that way

is having a capital city that is not part of one of the states. That way, no state has undue control over the federal government. Sorry, if my crime is loving the constitution too much, I'm guilty as charged!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:28 PM

67. Nonsense

A republic elects representatives who vote on things like gun control for a well regulated militia.

We are not a republic or a democracy thanks to so called 'patriotic' flag bearing hypocritical people like you.

When we become a republic, my representative will vote for gun control.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:30 PM

68. OK. Dealing with it, dealing with it, ... dealing. Dealt with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:31 PM

69. And it's funny that you actually want people to vote on it instead of judges deciding now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:37 PM

71. Both

How things work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:40 PM

73. But my point is that it wouild be BETTER if we made good laws and didn't leave it up to

unlected judges like Scalia or Ginsburg or whoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:51 PM

76. Let me know when I can elect a representative who can vote on that




.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:57 PM

78. As soon as you live in a STATE. And not in a district.

DC will be a state in, oh, I don't know, maybe NEVER years. If you want the rights that come from living in a state, move to a state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:02 AM

79. So the State is More Important than the People

So the State is More Important than the People.

Got it.

You do realize no other jurisdiction has more Democrats than DC?

Should we simply change parties first?

We do not live in a Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #79)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:09 AM

81. No other jurisdiction has more democrats than DC? Texas has more Democrats than DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #79)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:10 AM

82. "The State" as you call it is not more important than people. But states are more ...

important in congress than districts are. Just the way things work. Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:03 AM

80. You Do Know We Have Had a Constitutional Convention?

You do know the name of the proposed state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #80)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:16 AM

83. That's super!

And as I understand it, you want to name your state after Christopher Columbus.

I would totally support statehood for Puerto Rico, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:23 AM

84. Right

Citizens in one pay federal income taxes and citizens in other don't.

Can I ask who you voted for?

Oh, never mind.....

Exhibit A - Voter suppression of Democrats.
Exhibit B - Pay no taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:49 PM

75. Nah

Nah... I have ABSOLUTELY no voting representation in Congress who can vote on guns or anything else in your flag waiving government.

Bet they taught you we live in a republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:40 PM

51. This is America, and civil liberties are the people's birthright.

No one is giving us gays anything. We are claiming what is rightly ours as citizens.

The motorcycle helmet thing is just silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:18 PM

54. I agree. The government REQUIRING motor cycle helmets infringes on the rights...

...of people who were born wanting to ride motorcycles withiout helmets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:26 PM

14. Thanks

Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:01 AM

19. He explained:

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:41 PM

35. immoral

What's absurd is to reject the notion that treating people differently because of who they love is not only a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but is also immoral.

What's absurd is that the morality of discrimination is not questioned by him (or for that matter you), but 'reasoned' into the 'reduction of the absurd'.

Any comparison is simply absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:44 PM

36. Oh

PS- One is illegal. The other is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:46 AM

21. Myself and many others have theory about those who spend so much time and energy

Myself and many others have theory a about those who spend so much time and energy denouncing certain lifestyle choices.......

It goes something like eventually being found at a rest-stop with a meth pipe and a male escort....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:37 PM

28. Being gay is not a 'lifestyle choice' and most virulent anti gay activists are straight

like Antonin as well as hyper religious like Antonin. The meme that anti gay straights are actuall gay people is a way for the straight community to evade responsiblity for dealing with the hate mongers among them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:44 PM

37. Amen!

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:42 PM

52. Right on. It's a slur to say all homophobes are secretly gay.

I'm sure some are, but its a tiny minority of opportunists or the self loathing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:56 AM

22. Original Intent

Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.


On the surface that doesn't sound so unreasonable until you look at the context of those statements and realize that that world no longer exists. The words used have little value because you cannot reasonably overlay them on top of current conditions. What, for instance, did our Founding Fathers have to say about global warming. How does the Court rule on such issues when they come before the Court. This is in fact what the Court faced in Roe v Wade. It is impossible for the Court to interpret laws by "adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written" when the issue was unknowable at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:20 PM

31. Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:46 PM

33. haha

 

Romney is a sad joke now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:46 PM

32. f

 

Seems pretty anti gay to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:59 PM

38. Supreme buffoon and faux scholar

Whenever Nino The Fixer gets confronted with a legal question that doesn't fall within his narrow vision his fall back response is "It's not in the Constitution."
The Air Force isn't in the Constitution either as are many things and issues that didn't exist at the Country's inception and subsequent amendments thereof. A fraud by any other name........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:33 PM

46. "supreme buffoon" is so fitting, thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:20 PM

49. Buffoon yes

but still one of the greatest threats to American ideals and democracy itself. He should be impeached with prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:41 PM

39. "It isn't a living document," Scalia said. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."

Scalia, you obstructionist asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:10 PM

42. Yep, that's Rabid Dog Scalia for you...

... but he did write the Heller opinion, so the gungeon DUers still love him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:33 PM

50. True

....and sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:45 PM

53. Scalia is just pissy that he is on the cusp of losing his homophobic war

And his big mouth is going to ensure he goes down in history as one of the most reviled judges. Some legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:30 PM

57. Careful: our "pro gun progressives"* consider that homophobe a big hero of theirs:

he receives non-stop cheers and accolades down in the Gungeon.


*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:47 PM

58. Yea

Irony of ironies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread