Scalia: 'Don’t Paint Me As Anti-Gay'

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Feb 13, 2015 6:06 PM GMT
    Scalia: 'Don’t Paint Me As Anti-Gay'


    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/scalia_don_t_paint_me_as_anti_gay
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 6:07 PM GMT
    We can sculpt ya, Ant, if you prefer! icon_razz.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Feb 13, 2015 6:08 PM GMT
    As my favorite local drag queen....Rudy de la Mor...may he rest in peace.... used to say..BULLSHIT!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 9:07 PM GMT
    Almost did a spit-take on that headline. (Having lunch.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    "Scalia, who calls himself a textualist, is responsible for the claim that the Constitution should be interpreted not as a living document, but only with what the words on the document's page say specifically – much as religious extremists read the bible."


    Isn't that special? We'd still be living in 1776.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    The f*ck?!?!

    Scalia is trying to whitewash his HORRIFIC record of anti-LGBT bigotry and mean-spiritedness. Just read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. And his ROUTINE equips about how "sodomy" has been viewed as immoral since civilization (his words, not mine) is nauseating. He then pretends that it's about "who" decides, as if he's punting to the States now and that has--all along--been his issue?

    Witch please. I can't with this. I don't so much mind a person disagreeing with me, but DON'T lie to my face. I can't stand a liar.

    tumblr_lgbj6dMOzl1qf8yek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 9:44 PM GMT
    dayumm saidWe can sculpt ya, Ant, if you prefer! icon_razz.gif


    There's not enough clay in all of Tuscaloosa.

    “But don’t paint me as anti-gay or anti-abortion or anything else,” he added. “All I’m doing on the Supreme Court is opining about who should decide.”


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

    ...In 2003, during oral arguments in Lawrence v. Texas..."[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there was a time when it was a popular thing and probably annoyed a lot of communities, and then almost all of them repealed those laws," Scalia asked the attorney fighting the Texas law.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?"

    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."...

    in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans... 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[.]"

    ...in his dissent in Lawrence, writing that the Texas ban on homosexual sex "undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable,'" like laws against "fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity." Scalia later tees up "prostitution" and "child pornography" as other things he thinks are banned simply because people disapprove of them.

    ...Scalia suggested in his dissent in Romer that the relationships of same-sex partners were comparable to those of roommates. "[Colorado's ban] prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more," Scalia wrote. "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the 'life partner' of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee."

    ...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...

    ...in Lawrence...Scalia pointed out that gays and lesbians could just have sex with people of the opposite sex instead...(I couldn't even copy/paste that one without breaking out into laughter)


    Hey Scuzlia, go fuck yourself.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 10:08 PM GMT
    Hitler: "Don't paint me as anti-Jew."
    tumblr_njkjh3S2Du1tnlidgo1_500.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 10:12 PM GMT
    Michael Vick: "Don't paint me as anti-dog"
    tumblr_nj05khli7u1qzg669o1_500.jpg
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
    Ku Klux Klan: "Don't paint me as anti-black "
    tumblr_njpqiphNxJ1qeah26o1_1280.jpg
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 10:18 PM GMT
    John Boehner: "Don't paint me as anti-Obamacare"

    200_s.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 11:00 PM GMT
    At least Justice Ginsburg (whom, incidentally, one of our own RJ conservatives labelled as 'touching on senility' in another thread) had something eloquent, apposite and honest to say at the same event:

    When the talk turned to marriage equality, an issue before the court, Justice Ginsburg shared her thoughts of how the nation came so quickly to embrace expanding the institution to same-sex couples.

    “My own view of it is that people who once hid what they were have announced to the world this is who I am, And we looked to see who they are. They turned out to be our next door neighbor of whom we’re very fond. They turned out to be our child’s best friend – perhaps even our child,” she said. “I think that accounts for the very swift change.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 11:05 PM GMT
    To the extent Scalia opined on the matters now before SCOTUS, he was as wrong as Ginsburg or any other justice would be for doing so. If he did so, in mitigation, he does not appear to have done so to the extent Ginsburg did.

    As to his wish not be painted as anti-gay, he's certainly entitled to express his desires, but history will judge him from his record. And as far as that record goes, historical and otherwise, he's correct in stating that in Bible and Koran based cultures sodomy has been seen as immoral; that's just historical fact, as evidenced everyday by the argument of many, if not most, gay activists that this is the legacy that has to be undone, a completely valid argument. If Scalia errs, he does so by relying on this essentially religious foundation for depriving gays of their civil and marriage rights. I've always seen this as an establishment clause violation, caselaw - and the views of some gay activists - notwithstanding.

    However, I agree with Scalia that the question is who decides. To my mind, Ginsburg is wrong in claiming that "i]t isn’t the Supreme Court that is deciding for the whole society like an imperial ruler. There hasn’t been any major change in which there wasn’t a groundswell among the people before the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on the inclusion in the equality concept of people who were once left out.” Ginsburg forgets the days of the Warren Ct., when it established many rights and new legal doctrines that were never supported by any such "groundswell," and which were instead actively opposed; recall the John Birch Society's "Impeach Earl Warren" campaign, which, if anything, evidenced a groundswell against SCOTUS' lawmaking. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright (Ct. rewrites VI Amdt. to find right of free counsel for criminal defendants); Thompson v. Shapiro (misreading right to travel to include a "right" to interstate travel to reap welfare benefits free from state residency laws). The Sixth Circuit recognized as much in its opinion which SCOTUS will now review in acknowledging its humility and refusal to substitute its will for that of the voters, as long as constitutionally expressed.

    So no, Scalia's not the boogeyman some would have him be in their Alinsky-inspired pattern of identify and demonize, no matter how much they photoshop his, or Hitler or any other bigots' images about. For those to whom it must be repeated, I completely support gay rights, including gay marriage, and am on record since at least the 1980s of doing so. But, I do believe that those rights would have been better and more genuinely secured if they were supported by the groundswell to which Ginsburg refers, but of which she provides no real evidence other than her own stubborn belief. (See also, Scalia's dissent in Roper v. Simmons, outlawing death penalty for juveniles, arguing that SCOTUS improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the people, and criticizing majority for counting non-death penalty states and relying on international law to find a supposed national consensus (read, "groundswell") against juvenile executions.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 11:25 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    A majority of Americans now support equal marriage. The "trend" and movement has been unprecedented. Even more so than acceptance of interracial marriage--which took decades (with an 's').

    So there IS a groundswell, and the proof is in scientifically valid opinion polls with a stated margin of error. Was Ginsburg to cite the specific poll off the top of her head? Nobody is that smart, counselor.

    And just like Scalia's "original understanding" argument, as Posner states, his interpretative mechanism like yours is simply a smoke-screen for interjecting conservative ideological outcomes. I readily admit I do the same injection (though of liberal outcomes), but at least I and liberals admit it. Scalia, Thomas, and to a certain extent you, continue to keep playing the rouse of "proper" and "traditional" constitutional interpretation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 11:43 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MGINSD

    A majority of Americans now support equal marriage. The "trend" and movement has been unprecedented. Even more so than acceptance of interracial marriage--which took decades (with an 's').

    So there IS a groundswell, and the proof is in scientifically valid opinion polls with a stated margin of error. Was Ginsburg to cite the specific poll off the top of her head? Nobody is that smart, counselor.

    And just like Scalia's "original understanding" argument, as Posner states, his interpretative mechanism like yours is simply a smoke-screen for interjecting conservative ideological outcomes. I readily admit I do the same injection (though of liberal outcomes), but at least I and liberals admit it. Scalia, Thomas, and to a certain extent you, continue to keep playing the rouse of "proper" and "traditional" constitutional interpretation.


    You got me there: I readily admit to playing the "rouse" - and agent provacateur.

    Of course I didn't expect Ginsburg to cite a[ny] poll sua sponte; I'm satisfied she managed to stay awake!* But, support for gay marriage hovering around 60%, assuming the generous boost I've given the average poll numbers for argument's sake is correct, is hardly a 'groundswell;" it's better characterized as clear and convincing evidence (cf. "landslide"). Straw persons aside, I accept your argument re: fallible interpretive mechanisms, but part w/ you in claiming only liberals admit it; how then to support their permissive attitude towards illegal immigration and the "pathway to citizenship" (cf. wrong turn), which is really about their transparent desire to increase Demo voter registration, however illegally done?
    _____
    * Sorry, couldn't resist; it'd have been intellectually dishonest - if not posting malpractice - not to have made the joke.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 11:49 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    And just like Scalia's "original understanding" argument, as Posner states, his interpretative mechanism like yours is simply a smoke-screen for interjecting conservative ideological outcomes. I readily admit I do the same injection (though of liberal outcomes), but at least I and liberals admit it. Scalia, Thomas, and to a certain extent you, continue to keep playing the rouse of "proper" and "traditional" constitutional interpretation.


    Or, to put it more bluntly, if you run with bigots, then you're probably a bigot.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    It's Friday, I can admit that last joke was funny icon_cool.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Svnw688 said
    And just like Scalia's "original understanding" argument, as Posner states, his interpretative mechanism like yours is simply a smoke-screen for interjecting conservative ideological outcomes. I readily admit I do the same injection (though of liberal outcomes), but at least I and liberals admit it. Scalia, Thomas, and to a certain extent you, continue to keep playing the rouse of "proper" and "traditional" constitutional interpretation.


    Or, to put it more bluntly, if you run with bigots, then you're probably a bigot.


    Speaking of running with bigots:

    Here's Obama and homophobe Al Sharpton:
    obamasharpton.jpg

    Here's Obama and the Sultan of Brunei (who signed a law to execute gays):

    03122013_AP13031217009_jpg_600.jpg

    Here's Obama and the PM Of Malaysia (where gays are whipped and imprisoned for 20 years):
    1419779389347.jpg

    Here's Obama with homophobe Putin:
    Barack-Obama.jpg

    Here's Obama giving homophobe Warren Buffet the Presidential Medal of Freedom (HRC rates Buffet a ZERO):
    barackobamawarrenbuffett.jpg

    Here's Obama with the homophobe President of Kenya (where gays are raped and imprisoned):
    20142509005.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 3:02 AM GMT
    Actually, Scalia has a good idea - bear with me.

    *Arms* as in *right to bear arms* in 1777 were muzzle loading muskets.

    So, the 2nd Amendment, in a no-longer living document, would allow all Americans the right to own and use muzzle loading muskets.

    Not Ak-47's
    Not handguns
    Not semi-automatic assault rifles
    No armour piercing bullets


    Sounds like a plan - did anyone point out that little logical hiccup? I bet he'd be all for *interpreting* THAT ammendment...

    Doctor9
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Feb 14, 2015 3:11 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidThe f*ck?!?!

    Scalia is trying to whitewash his HORRIFIC record of anti-LGBT bigotry and mean-spiritedness. Just read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. And his ROUTINE equips about how "sodomy" has been viewed as immoral since civilization (his words, not mine) is nauseating. He then pretends that it's about "who" decides, as if he's punting to the States now and that has--all along--been his issue?

    Witch please. I can't with this. I don't so much mind a person disagreeing with me, but DON'T lie to my face. I can't stand a liar.

    tumblr_lgbj6dMOzl1qf8yek.gif


    Mean spirited? Dude, read your own profile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 4:03 AM GMT
    Doctor9 saidActually, Scalia has a good idea - bear with me.

    *Arms* as in *right to bear arms* in 1777 were muzzle loading muskets.

    So, the 2nd Amendment, in a no-longer living document, would allow all Americans the right to own and use muzzle loading muskets.

    Not Ak-47's
    Not handguns
    Not semi-automatic assault rifles
    No armour piercing bullets

    Sounds like a plan - did anyone point out that little logical hiccup? I bet he'd be all for *interpreting* THAT ammendment...

    Doctor9

    An elegant issue. Who interpreted "arms" to be anything other than 18th Century weapons? Those were the "arms" to which the Constitution referred.

    But marriage must remain literally defined in 18th-Century terms, according to Scalia, and can't evolve, as the 2nd Amendment has. No deviation allowed for marriage (please excuse the pun).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 4:39 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Doctor9 saidActually, Scalia has a good idea - bear with me.

    *Arms* as in *right to bear arms* in 1777 were muzzle loading muskets.

    So, the 2nd Amendment, in a no-longer living document, would allow all Americans the right to own and use muzzle loading muskets.

    Not Ak-47's
    Not handguns
    Not semi-automatic assault rifles
    No armour piercing bullets

    Sounds like a plan - did anyone point out that little logical hiccup? I bet he'd be all for *interpreting* THAT ammendment...

    Doctor9

    An elegant issue. Who interpreted "arms" to be anything other than 18th Century weapons? Those were the "arms" to which the Constitution referred.

    But marriage must remain literally defined in 18th-Century terms, according to Scalia, and can't evolve, as the 2nd Amendment has. No deviation allowed for marriage (please excuse the pun).


    No pun, so no excuse. Just poor composition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 4:41 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MGINSD

    It's Friday, I can admit that last joke was funny icon_cool.gif



    Especially after a bad day in law & motion, non mon frere?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 9:58 AM GMT
    "Speaking of running with bigots"

    Firstly, Obama, as a politician and head of state, has to meet with all kinds of people he does not necessarily like or agree with ideologically.

    Secondly, as far as we know, Obama is not gay. The moral equivalent of a gay conservative would be, say, Obama lauding and shaking hands with a KKK chief.

    Sorry, but gay conservatives are the lowest of the low.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 1:03 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said"Speaking of running with bigots"

    Firstly, Obama, as a politician and head of state, has to meet with all kinds of people he does not necessarily like or agree with ideologically.

    Secondly, as far as we know, Obama is not gay. The moral equivalent of a gay conservative would be, say, Obama lauding and shaking hands with a KKK chief.

    Sorry, but gay conservatives are the lowest of the low.


    Not all conservatives oppose gay rights. And there is a lot more to politics than gay issues. By your characterization, if one is gay and for limited government, one is among the lowest of the low?