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

[Potoooooooo]

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?”

 

[ksen]

good point Antonin!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?”

On the particular point he is making, he may not be wrong. He is probably correct. Is sexual orientation mentioned in your constitution as a ground you can't discriminate against on? This calls for better rooting in your constitution, rather than sensationalistic media quips though.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Scalia is a fat bigoted pig living off the public teat. And I know that's not fair to all the pigs out there. Anton would be at home with the Taliban. I'll buy the plane tickets.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[Selsaral]

I never would have guessed that Scalia is a member of NAMBLA.

 

[funinspace]

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?”

On the particular point he is making, he may not be wrong. He is probably correct. Is sexual orientation mentioned in your constitution as a ground you can't discriminate against on? This calls for better rooting in your constitution, rather than sensationalistic media quips though.

{Ignoring Scalia's obtuse and asinine conflation of adult-child relations with adult-adult relations...} He may have a point in Constitutional legalities. The US political system is fairly dysfunctional at this point, and amending the Constitution for much of anything probably won't be seen for quite a while. Within such realities, the SC did the practical thing of joining the national trend. They could have more narrowly forced the neanderthalic states to give full faith and credit to gay marriages that were legally performed in other states, just as they have to recognize all other marriages and divorces in other states, even Nevada's free-for-all marriage laws. It would have left it much messier and convoluted for another decade or so...

 

[Derec]

On the particular point he is making, he may not be wrong. He is probably correct. Is sexual orientation mentioned in your constitution as a ground you can't discriminate against on? This calls for better rooting in your constitution, rather than sensationalistic media quips though.

That is most certainly what he was going for, given his "strict constructionist" philosophy of constitutional interpretation.
However, his choice of example is sensationalist, kind of like Trump's attack on Carson where he also compared his pathological lying with child molesters.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was the actual court case set up to ask the justices to identify new rights for gays?

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?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Making illogical claims that things you dislike are the same as child molestation is as bad as molesting children.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is he talking about? Child molesters have been allowed to get married since forever. In not a single state has a Constitutional Ban been passed to restrict child molesters from marrying.

 

[Bomb#20]

On the particular point he is making, he may not be wrong. He is probably correct. Is sexual orientation mentioned in your constitution as a ground you can't discriminate against on? This calls for better rooting in your constitution, rather than sensationalistic media quips though.

Well, it's not clear exactly which decisions Scalia was talking about, and there have certainly been "gay rights" cases that were poorly reasoned. But the bottom line is that there are no gay rights; no, what government used to do to gays was a human rights violation.

There's a school of thought that says the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the freed slaves from states trying to oppress them again and it should therefore be read as if it said "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws because of his race."; I think Scalia takes that view. It seems to me that view is inane: if Congress had meant it that way they would have written it that way. My two-cents-worth aside, there's a line of cases where the SCOTUS has applied the 14th Amendment to non-race-based discrimination -- in particular, to sex discrimination. That the government needs a damn good reason if it wants to treat men differently from women is settled law. Scalia ought to accept that principle based on stare decisis if for no other reason.

And that should end the question, because these cases are not about "gay rights". Government is neither inquiring into nor taking judicial note of who is and who isn't homosexual. When Texas prosecuted somebody for sodomy it didn't put him on a polygraph and ask him if he was attracted to other men; it simply checked if he was screwing a man and checked if he was a man. They jailed a man for doing something that was perfectly legal for a woman to do. That's not discrimination against gays. That's discrimination against men.

In contrast, it's no more legal for a woman to have sex with a child than for a man to. There's therefore no logical way to extend "The constitution protects men screwing men" to "The constitution protects men screwing children." Scalia is an idiot.

 

[Trausti]

There's a school of thought that says the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the freed slaves from states trying to oppress them again and it should therefore be read as if it said "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws because of his race."; I think Scalia takes that view.

You'd be wrong. Scalia takes the view the Supreme Court has always taken on the 14th amendment, that it protects all races. If you doubt me, review the recent affirmative action case from Michigan (where the voters approved a law prohibiting universities from discriminating on race). In that case, it was the plaintiff who amazingly argued that white people were not protected by the 14th amendment.

I know he is not popular in these parts, but his criticism of the recent decision recognizing gay marriage is correct. I'm personally not against gay marriage; voted to approve it in my state. But that was through a popular vote/legislative mechanism, not the Court. The Constitution does not vest the Supreme Court with the authority to create same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a federal prerogative - no one gets married or divorced in federal court. Marriage was and is a state function, one of those preserved by the 10th amendment. If the Supreme Court nonetheless rules that it has the power to make an order for which it has no constitutional authority to make, then there is nothing that it cannot order. Hence, the child molester foil. Sure, you might think it's wrong, but if the constitutionally limited power of the Court can be disregarded, prohibiting NAMBLA members from exercising their sexual preference is a violation of their "human rights." And what's with these laws against bestiality?

 

[untermensche]

There's a school of thought that says the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the freed slaves from states trying to oppress them again and it should therefore be read as if it said "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws because of his race."; I think Scalia takes that view.

You'd be wrong. Scalia takes the view the Supreme Court has always taken on the 14th amendment, that it protects all races. If you doubt me, review the recent affirmative action case from Michigan (where the voters approved a law prohibiting universities from discriminating on race). In that case, it was the plaintiff who amazingly argued that white people were not protected by the 14th amendment.

I know he is not popular in these parts, but his criticism of the recent decision recognizing gay marriage is correct. I'm personally not against gay marriage; voted to approve it in my state. But that was through a popular vote/legislative mechanism, not the Court. The Constitution does not vest the Supreme Court with the authority to create same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a federal prerogative - no one gets married or divorced in federal court. Marriage was and is a state function, one of those preserved by the 10th amendment. If the Supreme Court nonetheless rules that it has the power to make an order for which it has no constitutional authority to make, then there is nothing that it cannot order. Hence, the child molester foil. Sure, you might think it's wrong, but if the constitutionally limited power of the Court can be disregarded, prohibiting NAMBLA members from exercising their sexual preference is a violation of their equal protection rights. And what's with these laws against bestiality?

The Constitution is not a weight that crushes human rights. And in the modern world we know that means the rights of consenting adults.

Some want it to be one though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm personally not against gay marriage; voted to approve it in my state. But that was through a popular vote/legislative mechanism, not the Court.

Civil rights are not up to the vote of the majority!

The Constitution does not vest the Supreme Court with the authority to create same-sex marriage.

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

Marriage is not a federal prerogative - no one gets married or divorced in federal court.

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

Marriage was and is a state function, one of those preserved by the 10th amendment. If the Supreme Court nonetheless rules that it has the power to make an order for which it has no constitutional authority to make, then there is nothing that it cannot order. Hence, the child molester foil. Sure, you might think it's wrong, but if the constitutionally limited power of the Court can be disregarded, prohibiting NAMBLA members from exercising their sexual preference is a violation of their "human rights."

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

The exact same stuff could be said about oral sex and sodomy. Decriminalize that and you might as well allow guys to have sex with dogs!

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's a school of thought that says the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the freed slaves from states trying to oppress them again and it should therefore be read as if it said "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws because of his race."; I think Scalia takes that view.

You'd be wrong. Scalia takes the view the Supreme Court has always taken on the 14th amendment, that it protects all races.

That's exactly what I said his position was.

I know he is not popular in these parts, but his criticism of the recent decision recognizing gay marriage is correct. I'm personally not against gay marriage; voted to approve it in my state. But that was through a popular vote/legislative mechanism, not the Court. The Constitution does not vest the Supreme Court with the authority to create same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a federal prerogative - no one gets married or divorced in federal court. Marriage was and is a state function, one of those preserved by the 10th amendment.

I don't think that's sound reasoning. Murder is a state matter too -- if you kill your neighbor you'll be prosecuted in state court unless the feds have some specific justification for making a federal case out of it. Do you figure that means it's okay for a state to pass a law saying a battered woman is allowed to shoot a man in his sleep and it's self-defense, but a battered man cannot claim self-defense if he shoots a woman in her sleep? The Supreme Court would stomp on that law in a second, probably over Scalia's objection, because it's a clear case of sex discrimination. That doesn't mean they're infringing on state prerogative. The feds would have no authority to say whether killing a sleeping abuser is or isn't self-defense; they only get to require that the state's rule be the same for both sexes. The 10th amendment doesn't overrule the 14th.

If the Supreme Court nonetheless rules that it has the power to make an order for which it has no constitutional authority to make, then there is nothing that it cannot order.

I'm quite sympathetic to that sort of argument in general -- I think Gonzales v. Raich was clearly wrongly decided, for instance -- but in this case it looks to me like the 14th amendment provides exactly the constitutional authority required. Why do you think it doesn't?

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

This.

 

[Trausti]

This is just bewildering.

Civil rights are not up to the vote of the majority!

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.

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 be arguing via hyperbole to support inertial bias and discrimination.

You're projecting.

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. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution with limited powers. Likewise, Congress and the Presidency were created by the Constitution with limited powers. Obergefell does not fall within the Supreme Court's powers delegated by the Constitution. That's Scalia's criticism. While you may be content with the Supreme Court's ultra vires order in this instance, it sets the precedent that the Supreme Court is not bound by the Constitution. It's as if the President decided to cut or raise taxes without Congress, or if Congress began issuing opinions on Constitutional law. Or if the State of Texas declared war on Canada.

 

[ronburgundy]

I know he is not popular in these parts, but his criticism of the recent decision recognizing gay marriage is correct. I'm personally not against gay marriage; voted to approve it in my state. But that was through a popular vote/legislative mechanism, not the Court. The Constitution does not vest the Supreme Court with the authority to create same-sex marriage.

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

 

[Trausti]

I know he is not popular in these parts, but his criticism of the recent decision recognizing gay marriage is correct. I'm personally not against gay marriage; voted to approve it in my state. But that was through a popular vote/legislative mechanism, not the Court. The Constitution does not vest the Supreme Court with the authority to create same-sex marriage.

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?