Antonin Scalia is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

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

    Jun 26, 2015 3:57 PM GMT
    Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think


    reference:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/antonin-scalia-dissent_n_7671110.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:24 PM GMT
    The phrase 'sore loser' springs to mind.
  • mar0302

    Posts: 273

    Jun 27, 2015 6:53 AM GMT
    It's a really funny dissent.. but often reading his dissents are amusing... sometimes they also foretell the future, in the ruling where they paved the way for gay marriage back in 2011 or 2012, his dissent basically said that the next time they saw a gay marriage case, they would have to make it legal everywhere... so even if he can be a bit bitchy, he is often right in his interpretation of what the rulings mean.. fortunately he's often in the dissent..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 9:12 AM GMT
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/09/same-sex-marriage-symposium-justice-scalias-constitutional-case-for-gay-marriage/



    Scalia has argued in favor of what he calls "majoritarian morality".
    In 2003 he opposed same-sex sodomy on the basis that the majority of citizens(in his view) were also opposed to the jiggery pokery of butt fuckery.

    Now that the majority want their gay family and friends to have equal rights, Scalia is pissed!
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 27, 2015 10:34 AM GMT
    This dope has always had his head up his own ass, convinced he's the real "intellectual" on the Court. For once (and most definitely unlike his predecessor) the smartest person on that Court is the Chief Justice himself (as it should be, when you think about it).

    He is probably one of the half dozen most brilliant legal minds of his generation, and as much as I disagree with him, I have a very, very hard time ever finding holes in his arguments.

    As with this decision, he made clear that we should be celebrating, but not celebrating the "Constitution" ("as that had nothing to do with it").

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

    Jun 27, 2015 8:46 PM GMT
    I listened online to a speech Scalia gave at Hastings law school recently and I think that compared to the more liberal justices he has a more coherent view of what the Constitution is for and the roles that the various branches of government are to take. For perspective I also listened to a speech by Ginsburg.

    I tend to agree with Scalia that the main purpose of the Constitution was to establish a limited form of government and to set up the branches that would carry out its functions. He is much better than the more liberal justices at keeping these purposes in mind and also projecting into the future how decisions affect he balance of power and thus distort the Constitution.

    Most people don't have this historical perspective but instead focus on what "feels" right at this particular moment. That is the approach the more liberal judges take as well. They're not all that concerned with the past or the future, or even that their particular decisions upon close examination are virtually arbitrary. The modern idea of a right of privacy is largely based on an abstract concept of "substantive" due process that has been read into the Constitution in modern times. ("Due process" generally means that established processes are followed, such as trial by jury, before people are deprived of life, liberty, or property.)

    The main problem with Scalia's approach is that it is self-limiting and becomes repetitive, so he juices his opinions up with over-the-top drama (he's a big opera fan). But he has a sound and intelligent legal mind.

    Interestingly he and Ginsburg are good friends ... having bonded over opera.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14345

    Jun 27, 2015 8:52 PM GMT
    Antonin Scalia cannot possibly be as unhinged as both Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee.icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 5:58 AM GMT
    Everything the guy writes is unhinged. He comes off as one of those proud illiterates who has never read a thing in his life, yet somehow can write. Maybe he has people who can write for him?

    Kind of tasty how the other scoutuses used his own words to burn him, over and over, on the health care ruling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 5:00 PM GMT
    I respect and admire Scalia's mind and his writings, and enjoy reading his trenchant and courageous critiques of liberal, extra-constitutional lawmaking. And, in person, he's quite an engaging and likeable guy. SCOTUS is lucky to have him, especially in these times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 7:56 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidI respect and admire Scalia's mind and his writings, and enjoy reading his trenchant and courageous critiques of liberal, extra-constitutional lawmaking. And, in person, he's quite an engaging and likeable guy. SCOTUS is lucky to have him, especially in these times.


    are you sure you're not a hetero? you are so ridiculous in most of your posts... and a disgrace to the gay community TBH
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 8:28 PM GMT
    nichoBR said
    MGINSD saidI respect and admire Scalia's mind and his writings, and enjoy reading his trenchant and courageous critiques of liberal, extra-constitutional lawmaking. And, in person, he's quite an engaging and likeable guy. SCOTUS is lucky to have him, especially in these times.


    are you sure you're not a hetero? you are so ridiculous in most of your posts... and a disgrace to the gay community TBH


    So much for diversity and tolerance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 11:21 PM GMT
    nichoBR said
    MGINSD saidI respect and admire Scalia's mind and his writings, and enjoy reading his trenchant and courageous critiques of liberal, extra-constitutional lawmaking. And, in person, he's quite an engaging and likeable guy. SCOTUS is lucky to have him, especially in these times.


    are you sure you're not a hetero? you are so ridiculous in most of your posts... and a disgrace to the gay community TBH


    Yes, I'm sure, and as far as the "gay community" goes, I'm on record, in public - or "out" as some would have it - in support of our rights, in and out of court, the press, and politics. And you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 11:31 PM GMT
    I don't see how anyone conservative or liberal could co-sign Scalia's dissent, as it was almost incoherent at some points and had no basis in constitutional law. It was garbage, plain and simple.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1034

    Jun 29, 2015 12:51 AM GMT
    The part that disturbs me most is this:

    "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch."

    For those who flunked history, he's comparing this judicial decision to the Nazi Party's takeover of Germany in the 1930s.

    He's whining because, in his opinion, the court's decision goes against the majority of Americans' desires - as if this is the first time that's happened. Has he never heard of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education? (That's the one that ended racial segregation in American schools, kids) Does he somehow believe that decision was popular in 1954? Or does he have a dissenting opinion in that case as well?

    You can't allow majority public opinion to dictate civil rights for minorities. That idea, Herr Scalia, sounds pretty Nazi to me.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 29, 2015 1:15 AM GMT
    bro4bro saidThe part that disturbs me most is this:

    "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch."

    For those who flunked history, he's comparing this judicial decision to the Nazi Party's takeover of Germany in the 1930s.

    He's whining because, in his opinion, the court's decision goes against the majority of Americans' desires - as if this is the first time that's happened. Has he never heard of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education? (That's the one that ended racial segregation in American schools, kids) Does he somehow believe that decision was popular in 1954? Or does he have a dissenting opinion in that case as well?

    You can't allow majority public opinion to dictate civil rights for minorities. That idea, Herr Scalia, sounds pretty Nazi to me.


    I have as little time for Scalia as anyone else, but fair is fair: I use the word "Putsch" in the same sense I do "coup", and I'm not referring to the 1923 Munich Putsch by the Nazis (which was then, btw, not the 1930s, and it failed).

    Hitler was appointed chancellor by the duly elected President of Germany in 1933: He did not (initially) "seize" power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 1:19 AM GMT
    Correct, WB, and there were any number of Putschen auf Deutschland prior to 1923, those immediately following the 1918 Armistice being the most notable.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1034

    Jun 29, 2015 1:28 AM GMT
    Do you seriously dispute which one Scalia was referring to?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 1:33 AM GMT
    bro4bro saidDo you [plural?] seriously dispute which one Scalia was referring to?

    You assume he was referring to one, when the word is usually used to refer to any illegitimate takeover, wherever and whenever found. The 1923 Putsch, aka the Beer Hall Putsch, was preceded by enough others that it was given a distinguishing name of its own. I recall it being used in reference to what some persisted in calling SCOTUS' "selection" of "W" Bush as president in 2000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    bro4bro saidDo you [plural?] seriously dispute which one Scalia was referring to?

    You assume he was referring to one, when the word is usually used to refer to any illegitimate takeover, wherever and whenever found. The 1923 Putsch, aka the Beer Hall Putsch, was preceded by enough others that it was given a distinguishing name of its own. I recall it being used in reference to what some persisted in calling SCOTUS' "selection" of "W" Bush as president in 2000.


    He was on a panel at one of our annual meetings along with the CJ in Arizona and some other states' judiciary, and I found him to be very bright, but said what he thought with a tinge of 'getting a reaction'.

    I'm quite certain you knew the man well .... Witkin behaved similarly until after one too many and HR would reel him in.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1034

    Jun 29, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    Outside of academic circles I don't think the word can be used today without bringing the Nazis to mind - and I thought that was exactly the intent when it was used in connection with the 2000 election.

    It would shock me if Scalia were so naive as to be unaware of this.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 29, 2015 1:51 AM GMT
    bro4bro saidDo you seriously dispute which one Scalia was referring to?


    It's just a German word for our anglicized "coup". (Where we would talk, say, about Pinochet's "coup" in Chile, in German you'd talk about Pinochet's "Putsch"). If you think he was actually referring to one historical event, do you mean he was suggesting that the Majority would "fail" in this "Putsch", be sent to prison for doing so, and eventually write their versions of Mein Kampf there, or what?

    I mean, as I say, I have no time for the guy, but I wouldn't belabor the point?

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

    Jun 29, 2015 1:53 AM GMT
    bro4bro saidOutside of academic circles I don't think the word can be used today without bringing the Nazis to mind - and I thought that was exactly the intent when it was used in connection with the 2000 election.

    It would shock me if Scalia were so naive as to be unaware of this.


    Wordsmith that he is, I'm sure Scalia wasn't unaware of the word Putsch, or of its origins. What is known only to him is whether he referred to one in particular, or as is more likely, to Putschen in general, when he used it as he did. I don't doubt for a minute that the surly and disappointed left intended to use it in reference to the Nazis in 2000; it's a liberal thing, as any search of their writings concerning, among others, the Koch Brothers will confirm. What's good for the goose, is turnabout for Justice Alito.

    Stop already, WB; I'm laughing too hard. Every politician has his Mein Kampf; ours is called Dreams of My Father. See, sometimes it IS worth belaboring a point!
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 29, 2015 1:53 AM GMT
    bro4bro saidOutside of academic circles I don't think the word can be used today without bringing the Nazis to mind - and I thought that was exactly the intent when it was used in connection with the 2000 election.

    It would shock me if Scalia were so naive as to be unaware of this.


    Do you speak German? Because that's just not true, at all. You "could" use it to refer to any sort of "uprising", like if people in the office "revolted" against a boss's decision, there was an office "Putsch", sort of thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 1:53 AM GMT
    nichoBR said
    MGINSD said
    I respect and admire Scalia's mind and his writings, and enjoy reading his trenchant and courageous critiques of liberal, extra-constitutional lawmaking. And, in person, he's quite an engaging and likeable guy. SCOTUS is lucky to have him, especially in these times.

    are you sure you're not a hetero? you are so ridiculous in most of your posts... and a disgrace to the gay community TBH

    Most of us have already concluded he's one of several Right Wing plants we have here. He's about as gay as Antonin Scalia, and every bit as hostile to us.

    You need to keep in mind that NOM and other groups funded by the Koch Brothers and their Right Wing ilk have placed trolls on social media, dispensing Republican propaganda & disinformation. They've been caught at it before. When you realize that RealJock has nearly 400,000 gay members it would be naive and almost inconceivable that we haven't been targeted by the Right. Behold one of their more inept recruits. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 1:57 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    nichoBR said
    MGINSD said
    I respect and admire Scalia's mind and his writings, and enjoy reading his trenchant and courageous critiques of liberal, extra-constitutional lawmaking. And, in person, he's quite an engaging and likeable guy. SCOTUS is lucky to have him, especially in these times.

    are you sure you're not a hetero? you are so ridiculous in most of your posts... and a disgrace to the gay community TBH

    Most of us have already concluded he's one of several Right Wing plants we have here. He's about as gay as Antonin Scalia, and every bit as hostile to us.

    You need to keep in mind that NOM and other groups funded by the Koch Brothers and their Right Wing ilk have placed trolls on social media, dispensing Republican propaganda & disinformation. They've been caught at it before. When you realize that RealJock has nearly 400,000 gay members it would be naive and almost inconceivable that we haven't been targeted by the Right. Behold one of their more inept recruits. icon_razz.gif


    Butt out, Artless, and don't ruin another fun exchange w/ your half-assedries. Don't you have a HRC event to attend or something equally banal to regale us with later? Begone, you have no power here!