Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Gay Rights Or Rights For Child Molesters – What’s The Difference?

[untermensche]

The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the authority to ensure that people are treated equally under the law. SCOTUS is not creating gay-marriage. It is ruling that when States create the legal entity of marriage it is unconstitutionally discriminatory for them to exclude gay people from entering such a legal arrangement. IOW, if all States did away with all marriage entirely, then you'd have a point. Until then, you don't

The Constitution does not give the federal government - be it the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President - the power to define marriage. If you're okay with what the Supreme Court did here, what can't it do?

It give the Court the power to determine when unconstitutional discrimination is occurring.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the authority to ensure that people are treated equally under the law. SCOTUS is not creating gay-marriage. It is ruling that when States create the legal entity of marriage it is unconstitutionally discriminatory for them to exclude gay people from entering such a legal arrangement. IOW, if all States did away with all marriage entirely, then you'd have a point. Until then, you don't

The Constitution does not give the federal government - be it the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President - the power to define marriage. If you're okay with what the Supreme Court did here, what can't it do?

Marriage exists as a product of law. As such, its definition determines whether it is a constitutional law or not and whether it is being applied in a constitutional manner.

 

[RavenSky]

The logic is flawless.

Rights for two consenting adults are the same as rights for an adult and a child.

I mean it is doubtful Scalia could ever find examples where contracts between adults are treated differently than contracts between adults and children.

And this man decides on the law of the land.

^^^^ all of this

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the authority to ensure that people are treated equally under the law. SCOTUS is not creating gay-marriage. It is ruling that when States create the legal entity of marriage it is unconstitutionally discriminatory for them to exclude gay people from entering such a legal arrangement. IOW, if all States did away with all marriage entirely, then you'd have a point. Until then, you don't

The Constitution does not give the federal government - be it the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President - the power to define marriage. If you're okay with what the Supreme Court did here, what can't it do?

Who is it then who has the power to define marriage?

Here are some possibilities:
1. the states

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

2. the people

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

3. it's a freedom of religion issue

1st Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof​

Emphasis added.

4. marriage was already part of common law which was adopted by congress when it set up the courts according to constitutional power vested in congress to set up the courts

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I thought the question was whether or not the existing laws that withheld equal rights from gays were not constitutional? That there was no sound, legal, non-religious basis to treat people differently based solely on whether or not their sex life made Scalia uncomfortable in his no-no place?

This. Exactly.

Scalia's an idiot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is just bewildering.

Yeah, I agree, the below quote is absurd.

Then grown men should be able to have sex with young boys.

There is no such thing as a "same-sex marriage license". The Supreme Court did not create a Same-Sex Marriage License.

But that's exactly what the Supreme Court said it did in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Then you can present me a form from a city or county that says "Gay Marriage" License on it.

This issue was addressed between 1861 and 1865, and ultimately most things regarding rights do fall under Federal review.

The Constitution does not confer to the federal government the power to define marriage and no Supreme Court opinion, before Obergefell, ever questioned that marriage is a state institution.

You seem to want to snuggle up in the particulars. Almost nothing in the Constitution is particular, but rather vague. The 14th Amendment has been understood to deal with the application of Civil Rights and privileges, which Marriage is.

You seem to be arguing via hyperbole to support inertial bias and discrimination.

You're projecting.

You may need to read up on what hyperbole is, as I haven't actually even used an analogy, forget a ridiculously exaggerated one.

But it has gotten to the point where we are being warned that if we allow for gays to have sex and not for that to be criminalized (like it was in the US in 200fucking3, and remains criminalized in Iran), there is nothing stopping child sex offenders from arguing in court their crimes should be considered a Civil Right. Except the whole point with the child sex thing is that there is only one consenting party, whereas gay sex is two consenting parties! Which makes this entire hyperbole ridiculous and preposterous.

You're entirely missing the issue.

Oddly enough, no I didn't. Scalia is saying that removing the barrier for gays to get a "marriage license" is no different than allowing for an adult to violate the Civil Rights of a child. That is just fucking stupid. The fact that he is a Justice on the Supreme Court is frightening that such a ridiculous and absurd argument could even be uttered by him.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

http://www.joemygod.com/2015/11/17/...hts-for-child-molesters-whats-the-difference/


The Supreme Court’s decisions protecting gay rights were not rooted in the Constitution, and their logic could as easily apply to child molesters, Justice Antonin Scalia told a room filled with first-year law students at Georgetown University on Monday. “What minorities deserve protection?”

What is the original quote from Scalia about the logic? -- i.e., "and their logic could as easily apply to child molesters, Justice Antonin Scalia told a room filled with . . ." etc.

This is not given as an actual quote from Scalia, which probably means it's a paraphrase.

So there could be a distortion here. Why only a paraphrase and not the actual quote?

 

[ZiprHead]

What part of sexual discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional does he not get?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What part of sexual discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional does he not get?

Scalia sometimes reminds me of a 2-star admiral that used to run the sub base in New London.

He started a sexual harassment stand down with a speech that began and ended with: "Don't fuck with the bitches." Followed immediately, of course, by a staff Lt. Commander saying 'What the Admiral meant, was...'

There should just be an angel with a big rubber stamp going around marking the foreheads of people so we'll know when the world has 'moved on' without them.

 

[arkirk]

What part of sexual discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional does he not get?

Scalia sometimes reminds me of a 2-star admiral that used to run the sub base in New London.

He started a sexual harassment stand down with a speech that began and ended with: "Don't fuck with the bitches." Followed immediately, of course, by a staff Lt. Commander saying 'What the Admiral meant, was...'

There should just be an angel with a big rubber stamp going around marking the foreheads of people so we'll know when the world has 'moved on' without them.

The problem is that this Jackass has been appointed for LIFE! Something is very wrong here and we will eventually have to face up to it. The Supreme Court is a totally dysfunctional governmental body that requires repair. Getting Scalia and Thomas off of it quickly would make a lot of sense. We have been dealt a bad hand by our Constitution and need to straighten that out! There really is no more point in individual complaints against these Justices. They need to be removed. Why we have no effective mechanism in the Constitution for doing that is beyond me. These men act like God appointed them to be our Gods.

 

[bilby]

Scalia sometimes reminds me of a 2-star admiral that used to run the sub base in New London.

He started a sexual harassment stand down with a speech that began and ended with: "Don't fuck with the bitches." Followed immediately, of course, by a staff Lt. Commander saying 'What the Admiral meant, was...'

There should just be an angel with a big rubber stamp going around marking the foreheads of people so we'll know when the world has 'moved on' without them.

The problem is that this Jackass has been appointed for LIFE! Something is very wrong here and we will eventually have to face up to it. The Supreme Court is a totally dysfunctional governmental body that requires repair. Getting Scalia and Thomas off of it quickly would make a lot of sense. We have been dealt a bad hand by our Constitution and need to straighten that out! There really is no more point in individual complaints against these Justices. They need to be removed. Why we have no effective mechanism in the Constitution for doing that is beyond me. These men act like God appointed them to be our Gods.

The idea of appointment for life is that it prevents Supreme Court Justices from being sacked for political reasons. Would you prefer a system where the G W Bush administration would have been able to fire the entire bench, and appoint nine new justices of their choosing? Or where the House Majority Leader could lean on the justices to rule the way he prefers, under threat of replacement by someone more compliant?

With life appointments, nobody can fire someone just for disagreeing with them; and in principle one or two bad apples can be voted down by their more rational peers.

Life tenure tends to limit the number of new appointments per President to one or two, so that it would take a very long period of consistent voting in of Presidents of one political position to stack the SCOTUS in favour of one viewpoint. And once appointed, justices are beholden to nobody to keep their job, so the influence that the President (or party) that selected them has is much reduced. This makes it very hard for even a fairly long period of voter-backed extremism to be reflected in the make up of the bench, and so has a moderating effect.

A lot of the best provisions in national constitutions (including, but not limited to, that of the USA) are the ones that make it hard to get things done. This is a feature, not a bug - if ideas are only popular for a few decades, they tend not to get imposed on the people. Only the truly long-term social changes end up reflected in law, and if an idea can stand the test of time, it's often worth waiting for, if only to filter out the ideas that sound good at the outset, but which turn out to be dangerous fads.

 

[fast]

The problem is that this Jackass has been appointed for LIFE! Something is very wrong here and we will eventually have to face up to it. The Supreme Court is a totally dysfunctional governmental body that requires repair. Getting Scalia and Thomas off of it quickly would make a lot of sense. We have been dealt a bad hand by our Constitution and need to straighten that out! There really is no more point in individual complaints against these Justices. They need to be removed. Why we have no effective mechanism in the Constitution for doing that is beyond me. These men act like God appointed them to be our Gods.

The idea of appointment for life is that it prevents Supreme Court Justices from being sacked for political reasons. Would you prefer a system where the G W Bush administration would have been able to fire the entire bench, and appoint nine new justices of their choosing? Or where the House Majority Leader could lean on the justices to rule the way he prefers, under threat of replacement by someone more compliant?

With life appointments, nobody can fire someone just for disagreeing with them; and in principle one or two bad apples can be voted down by their more rational peers.

Life tenure tends to limit the number of new appointments per President to one or two, so that it would take a very long period of consistent voting in of Presidents of one political position to stack the SCOTUS in favour of one viewpoint. And once appointed, justices are beholden to nobody to keep their job, so the influence that the President (or party) that selected them has is much reduced. This makes it very hard for even a fairly long period of voter-backed extremism to be reflected in the make up of the bench, and so has a moderating effect.

A lot of the best provisions in national constitutions (including, but not limited to, that of the USA) are the ones that make it hard to get things done. This is a feature, not a bug - if ideas are only popular for a few decades, they tend not to get imposed on the people. Only the truly long-term social changes end up reflected in law, and if an idea can stand the test of time, it's often worth waiting for, if only to filter out the ideas that sound good at the outset, but which turn out to be dangerous fads.

Using reason and being reasonable are not one in the same. Using reason (and using it well) and being reasonable are still not one in the same. We must (not simply should) but must keep our eye on the extreme ends of reason. Neither a dingy nor the greatest ship known to man tames the extremes out of moderation. If I had to choose between the extremes, I'd go with your reason(ing) but if I had my rathers, I'd limit it to something less than life.

 

[bilby]

The idea of appointment for life is that it prevents Supreme Court Justices from being sacked for political reasons. Would you prefer a system where the G W Bush administration would have been able to fire the entire bench, and appoint nine new justices of their choosing? Or where the House Majority Leader could lean on the justices to rule the way he prefers, under threat of replacement by someone more compliant?

With life appointments, nobody can fire someone just for disagreeing with them; and in principle one or two bad apples can be voted down by their more rational peers.

Life tenure tends to limit the number of new appointments per President to one or two, so that it would take a very long period of consistent voting in of Presidents of one political position to stack the SCOTUS in favour of one viewpoint. And once appointed, justices are beholden to nobody to keep their job, so the influence that the President (or party) that selected them has is much reduced. This makes it very hard for even a fairly long period of voter-backed extremism to be reflected in the make up of the bench, and so has a moderating effect.

A lot of the best provisions in national constitutions (including, but not limited to, that of the USA) are the ones that make it hard to get things done. This is a feature, not a bug - if ideas are only popular for a few decades, they tend not to get imposed on the people. Only the truly long-term social changes end up reflected in law, and if an idea can stand the test of time, it's often worth waiting for, if only to filter out the ideas that sound good at the outset, but which turn out to be dangerous fads.

Using reason and being reasonable are not one in the same. Using reason (and using it well) and being reasonable are still not one in the same. We must (not simply should) but must keep our eye on the extreme ends of reason. Neither a dingy nor the greatest ship known to man tames the extremes out of moderation. If I had to choose between the extremes, I'd go with your reason(ing) but if I had my rathers, I'd limit it to something less than life.

Fair enough; but if the limit is such that it becomes common for more than half the bench to be replaced during a single administration (or even the eight years of a single President's maximum two terms), then the ability of the SCOTUS to act as a check on the power of the POTUS would be badly compromised. The benefit of 'life' is that death is not predictable. If the justices served a fixed term (even of several decades), or were required to retire at a set age (even if it was very old - say 90 years), then a hypothetical 'evil President' could use that information to plan a coup, knowing that enough appointments were in his gift, and not that of his successor(s) for him to stack the bench with his cronies.

The system of life appointments renders any predictions about when a vacancy (or vacancies) might arise pure guesswork; an evil President could only ensure a vacancy by homicide, and if getting a BJ in the Oval Office leads to impeachment proceedings, murdering a Supreme Court Justice would surely be frowned upon.

 

[blastula]

http://www.joemygod.com/2015/11/17/...hts-for-child-molesters-whats-the-difference/


The Supreme Court’s decisions protecting gay rights were not rooted in the Constitution, and their logic could as easily apply to child molesters, Justice Antonin Scalia told a room filled with first-year law students at Georgetown University on Monday. “What minorities deserve protection?”

Not so easily to child molesters, but perhaps to polygamists.

 

[fast]

Using reason and being reasonable are not one in the same. Using reason (and using it well) and being reasonable are still not one in the same. We must (not simply should) but must keep our eye on the extreme ends of reason. Neither a dingy nor the greatest ship known to man tames the extremes out of moderation. If I had to choose between the extremes, I'd go with your reason(ing) but if I had my rathers, I'd limit it to something less than life.

Fair enough; but if the limit is such that it becomes common for more than half the bench to be replaced during a single administration (or even the eight years of a single President's maximum two terms), then the ability of the SCOTUS to act as a check on the power of the POTUS would be badly compromised. The benefit of 'life' is that death is not predictable. If the justices served a fixed term (even of several decades), or were required to retire at a set age (even if it was very old - say 90 years), then a hypothetical 'evil President' could use that information to plan a coup, knowing that enough appointments were in his gift, and not that of his successor(s) for him to stack the bench with his cronies.

The system of life appointments renders any predictions about when a vacancy (or vacancies) might arise pure guesswork; an evil President could only ensure a vacancy by homicide, and if getting a BJ in the Oval Office leads to impeachment proceedings, murdering a Supreme Court Justice would surely be frowned upon.

I'm thinking in the theoretical, but your added cautions lead me think I should be more abreast of the factuals before taking a more firm stance. I'm not in the know, and your presentation is adequate enough for me to at least for now to say I should defer to your judgement.