# A moment of your time, please, Justice Scalia **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 24, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243 "2003-10-24T02:53:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/61 "2003-10-24T18:39:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Add me to the list of poor constitutional interpreters, then. Scalia’s dissent in _Lawrence_ was accurate, and the majority was dishonest. When the issue is _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, the Court (including members of the Lawrence majority) couldn’t say enough great things about the value of _stare decisis_. When the issue was _Lawrence_, the choir singing the praises of stare decisis fell conspicuously silent. > > This has nothing to do with bigotry. It has to do with following the right process. If I were a Texas voter, I’d have fought to remove legislators that were responsible for that bigoted law. BUT IT WAS NOT A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. > > Now, alas, it is.\*\* The freedom of two people to engage in sexual relations is not a federal constitutional issue? The fact the Texas legislature criminalized conduct for homosexuals and not hetereosexuals is not a federal constitutional issue? Oh how we would disagree. A restriction on the right to engage in sexual relations surely does inplicate not just the Due Process Clause, but also the line of cases including Griswold and Romer. While I agree with Scalia that the fuzzy logic and their refusal to use the standard Constitutional tests in these types of cases by the majority were wrong, I would not agree that there is no Constitutional issue here. Add to that the blatant attempt to the Texas legislature to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, which surely implicates the Equal Protection Clause, and you definitely have Constitutional Issues. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > **This has everything to do with the willingness to use the federal courts to achieve results that the legislature was unwilling to offer.** No, it had everything to do with protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States from the bigoted, and unconstitutional, actions of a bigoted legislature. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*That’s what Scalia said, and he wasn’t wrong. > > - Rick \*\* Let’s not forget that Scalia also said that the majority had taken sides in a “culture war,” and that hey had signed on to “the homosexual agenda.” Not that he has anything against homosexuals. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/62 "2003-10-24T18:47:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > **minty** : > > I think it’s fair to say that in the entire time I have been on these boards, and even participated in the Pit, I have almost never given in to the temptation to spew harsh language. > > However. > > Bite my bag, you pretentious ass. See, don’t you feel better now, Bricker? Enabling you to do that is, after all, one of the things that the Pit is all about. Now get the fuck over yourself, already. > [@](#): > > You criticism of Scalia is utterly misplaced. His comments are, as **DCU** cogently observes, no different than any public figure criticizing the actions taken by his or her political brethern. Bull fucking shit. Members of the judiciary have traditionally (and rightfully, IMO) been held to far higher standards of civility and decorum than other public figures. I have no desire to see the third branch descend into the political cesspool that characterizes so much of the other two branches. But I guess if you’re a conservative activist who wants to hijack the courts for your own political purposes ( :rolleyes: ), that’s just part of the package, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Had the vote gone the other way in _Lawrence_, and Souter made similar public comments, I can’t picture you foaming at the mouth about it – because you’d agree with Souter. I concede that Scalia’s patent homophobia, and his context of pandering to _other_ homophobes–makes this even more distasteful to me. But I also assure you that if David Souter went in front of People For the American Way and mocked Scalia’s dissent the way Scalia did with the Court’s majority, I would most certainly condemn his doing so. Fortunately, Souter is by all apearances _not_ a reprehensible turd. > [@](#): > > That’s partisanship at its worst. Your standards for permitting or condemning public discourse ebb and flow with the political wind of the discourse in question. Bite me, Rick. That is completely untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/63 "2003-10-24T19:03:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Had the vote gone the other way in Lawrence, and Souter made similar public comments Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? Scalia’s is an arrogant, egomaniacal prick. Souter’s not. Scalia publicly disparages his colleagues’ integrity and intelligence. Souter doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/64 "2003-10-24T19:08:19Z")
Funny thing you should mention Souter, **minty** because he made one of my favorite comments about Scalia, in BOARD OF ED. OF KIRYAS JOEL v. GRUMET, when he said: > [@](#): > > “Justice Scalia’s dissent is certainly the work of a gladiator, but he thrusts at lions of his own imagining.” And some people think he doesn’t have a personality. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/65 "2003-10-24T19:09:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Giving a speech at a think tank is not “embroiling [one]self in partisan politics,” even if that think tank has a well-known slant. Damn, you are the King of Contextualization today, aren’t you? It is _the sum total_ of the context that shows Scalia wallowing in the political mud: the partisan political audience, the mockery of the majority, the pandering to the homophobes, the overall level of contempt for his colleagues and everyone else who disagrees with the Almighty Justice Scalia. You can’t just look at each one of those in isolation and declare that it proves the man’s shit don’t stink. > [@](#): > > Surely you woudn’t bitch about Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivering a keynote to the ACLU or People for the American Way. Clarence Thomas was disinvited from speaking to the NAACP a few years back; surely you wouldn’t complain if he had given the speech as planned. As with my response to Bricker above, I would most certainly complain if they went before those groups _and_ conducted themselves in a manner similar to Scalia. And in point of fact, I would generally prefer that the justices _not_ address such political groups. Indeed, I believe they do so fairly rarely, precisely because they wish to avoid the appearance (or in Scalia’s case, the fact) of wallowing in the political pigsty. > [@](#): > > He didn’t mock his colleagues. He mocked the decision. What is that, if not “[t]ak[ing] issue with their reasoning, their analysis [and] their case cites”? He didn’t call Anthony Kennedy an incompetent douchebag; he said the opinion was extraordinarily stupid. Surely you can see the difference. I refer you to the statement of the gentleman from Libertaria: “So, if I mock your posts, it means that I am not mocking you? If I read your post to my wife with my nose curled, imitating a fat old snobby English fop, I am not mocking you?” > [@](#): > > There is no distinction in this case between criticism and mocking. When we debate the court’s jurisprudence on these boards, both sides routinely mock the arguments they find absurd as a means of illustrating just how silly they find the court’s reasoning. Scalia’s comments are no different. Wrong. We are posters on a message board. Scalia is a justice on the United States Supreme Court. That, my friend, makes all the difference in the world. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/66 "2003-10-24T19:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > Did I say that I did not “tolerate dissenting opinions”? No, I did not. I said that, in measuring the effect of minty’s blasting Scalia on a message board against Scalia’s blasting his colleagues and speaking out publicly on cases, there is an almost immeasurable difference in degree. minty to the best of my knowledge has no ability to affect the destinies of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people now and for untold years into the future. Scalia exercises enormous power, authority and influence over the lives of every American and by extension over huge segments of the non-American population. So, like I said the first time, Scalia is every bit as free to spew his bile as minty is. But his bile spews over a wider range and has greater consequences, so he should feel obliged to be a bit more careful about it. Not really _that_ difficult a concept, is it? Actually yes, I can’t figure out what you mean. I am not accusing you of wanting to physically prevent Scalia from speaking - this is a topic that has not arisen on this board. But you seem to be endorsing the idea that Scalia must voluntarily refrain from expressing his position, because Otto regards it as harmful “bile”. One man’s bile is another man’s considered and judicious opinion. The general concept of toleration is that we allow everyone to express their opinion, and let the marketplace of ideas determine if it is in fact bile or a considered and judicious opinion. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/67 "2003-10-24T19:13:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > And some people think [Souter] doesn’t have a personality. Not me. I met him at a reception a few years back and had a great time chatting with him. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/68 "2003-10-24T19:16:58Z")
Oh crap. Nevermind. That was Breyer, not Souter. Too many bald New Englanders on the Supreme Court, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/69 "2003-10-24T19:18:38Z")
> [@](#): > > All of you who think Scalia is just some nut job who doesn’t believe in individual freedoms should read his recent opinion on the 4th amendment. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2038 (2001). Note that Scalia, for the majority, ruled that the use of thermal imaging to learn about what was going on inside a house was a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment, while Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy and Rhenquist would have ruled that it was not. In other words, Scalia thinks two men fucking in their own home should be illegal but you have to bust in the door to catch them instead of using thermal imaging. Such the titan of individual liberties he. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/70 "2003-10-24T19:24:08Z")
Otto, there’s no need to fall for Rhum Runner’s pointless diversion. Scalia’s position on a search and seizure issue has nothing at all to do with his position and rhetoric in _Lawrence_, much less his contemptuous public behavior last night. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/71 "2003-10-24T19:26:36Z")
**Izzy** , when someone is speaking as a private citizen, you’re right. When he is speaking as someone who has the authority to act on his bile, some more demanding standards have to apply, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/72 "2003-10-24T20:36:33Z")
> [@](#): > > But you seem to be endorsing the idea that Scalia must voluntarily refrain from expressing his position, because Otto regards it as harmful “bile”. Please point out exactly where you think I’m saying that my standards of bile should prevail. For the THIRD time then… Scalia is powerful. minty is not powerful. With power should come an increased awareness of how one is perceived. Scalia, being someone who exercises enourmous influence over the state of the world, should be really extra-special careful. Scalia can say whatever he wants, subject to the laws of the land that he and his brethren past and present have interpreted. He can also expect by dint of his position to be held to a somewhat higher standard than an unknown lawyer in Texas. I feel like I’ve been damning minty in my efforts to support him. Sorry minty, you know I love ya more’n my luggage. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/73 "2003-10-24T21:22:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*In other words, Scalia thinks two men fucking in their own home should be illegal but you have to bust in the door to catch them instead of using thermal imaging. Such the titan of individual liberties he. \*\* Where has Scalia ever expressed an opinion on whether or not it should be illegal for two men to have sex? ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/74 "2003-10-24T21:36:01Z")
And where has Scalia said that breaking down the door of a home/apartment without a warrant constitutionally permissible? You need to reread Kyllo. And the facts of Lawrence. Lawrence never raised a 4th amendment violation defense to the criminal conviction. I bet if the police were randomly busting down doors in Houston looking for gay sex to prosecute, Scalia would have been the first one to slap them down for such a clear 4th Amendment violation, same way he did the cops using the thermal search technology. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/75 "2003-10-24T21:37:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Damn, you are the King of Contextualization today, aren’t you? It is _the sum total_ of the context that shows Scalia wallowing in the political mud: the partisan political audience, the mockery of the majority, the pandering to the homophobes, the overall level of contempt for his colleagues and everyone else who disagrees with the Almighty Justice Scalia. You can’t just look at each one of those in isolation and declare that it proves the man’s shit don’t stink. \*\* “Sum total” my ass. You’re just piling on the pejorative rhetoric. All Scalia did was give a speech before a conservative think tank in which he read portions of one particular opinion in a less-than-neutral tone. That’s it. Nothing more. You can spin to your heart’s delight, but that’s all there is. Allow me to translate your rhetoric: “Partisan political audience” = people who agree with Scalia on constitutional mattters. “Mockery of the majority” = Reading the majority opinion in a tone somewhere shy of total reverence. “Pandering to the homophobes” = Deciding not to join the majority in _Lawrence_. “Overall contempt for his colleagues and everyone else who dares disagree with Almihty Justice Scalia” = having the temerity to hold a minority viewpoint, and having the further temerity to actually say your viewpoint is right and your opponents are wrong. \*\* > [@](#): > > As with my response to Bricker above, I would most certainly complain if they went before those groups _and_ conducted themselves in a manner similar to Scalia. \*\* And what manner might that be? All we really have to go on is one AP reporter’s opinion that Scalia adopted an irreverent tone while reading certain passages from the majority opinion. That could well mean anything. Indeed, if I’m giving a speech on why I think _Lawrence_ was poorly decided, and I read a passage that I find particularly absurd so that I might critique it, I’d find it hard to read that passage in a way that couldn’t conceivably be construed as “mocking.” \*\* > [@](#): > > And in point of fact, I would generally prefer that the justices _not_ address such political groups. Indeed, I believe they do so fairly rarely, precisely because they wish to avoid the appearance (or in Scalia’s case, the fact) of wallowing in the political pigsty. \*\* Your preference be damned, justices do give these sorts of speeches from time to time. Given that you haven’t shown that Scalia does so more frequently than his fellow justices, I have to think you’re singling him out because you’re a whiny partisan bitch. \*\* > [@](#): > > I refer you to the statement of the gentleman from Libertaria: “So, if I mock your posts, it means that I am not mocking you? If I read your post to my wife with my nose curled, imitating a fat old snobby English fop, I am not mocking you?” \*\* I refer you to my response to the gentleman from Libertaria: Correct, and correct. I can respect the intellect of a justice even if I think some of his opinions are stupid and worthy of mocking. \*\* > [@](#): > > Wrong. We are posters on a message board. Scalia is a justice on the United States Supreme Court. That, my friend, makes all the difference in the world. \*\* You miss the point. If your opponent makes an absurd point, it is perfectly within bounds to mock it as a means of showing its absurdity. That is no less true for judges than it is for others. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/76 "2003-10-24T21:44:59Z")
Save me from the humor-impaired… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/77 "2003-10-24T21:48:51Z")
Dewey > [@](#): > > I can respect a poster and still think a particular argument advanced by that poster is stupid. Actually, that makes sense. It seems that I have committed an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/78 "2003-10-24T21:49:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by schplebordnik \* > \*\*And where has Scalia said that breaking down the door of a home/apartment without a warrant constitutionally permissible? You need to reread Kyllo. And the facts of Lawrence. Lawrence never raised a 4th amendment violation defense to the criminal conviction. I bet if the police were randomly busting down doors in Houston looking for gay sex to prosecute, Scalia would have been the first one to slap them down for such a clear 4th Amendment violation, same way he did the cops using the thermal search technology. \*\* Are you talking to me? My only point in raising Kyllo was to point out that Scalia, contrary to some of the accusations being made here, is sensitive to individual rights. Provided those rights have some foundation in the Constitution. There have been some very broad condemnations of the man here, and contrary to **Minty’s** position, it is not a “pointless diverstion” to discuss other opinions that the man has written. Perhaps Justice O’Connor’s “more searching” rational basis test (from _Lawrence_) is one you prefer, personally I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. When is the rational basis test to be searching, not merely rational? ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/79 "2003-10-24T21:52:03Z")
No, not you. Whoever it was that said that Scalia wants to break down the doors of people’s houses to see if they are having gay sex. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243/80 "2003-10-24T22:04:22Z")
Even though this is the Pit, it may be time to pull the rhetoric down a bit. The Supreme Court is different. It has been afforded a level of deference that no other public institution can aspire to. The acceptance of the court’s decisions are dependent on that level of deference. While it is perfectly appropriate for members of the public, legal scholars, officials of the other two branches of government, and pundits with an agenda to spin to publicly criticize the court and its workings, the respect and honor the court must have to do its work cannot survive if members of the court itself go out into public forums to criticize the courts decisions. It is even worse when a member of the court goes to a private function for people who don’t much like the court’s decisions and acts as a cheerleader for the critics. A justice of the Supreme Court has one place to criticize the court’s decisions and that is it his own opinions. Justice Scalia does not appear to be content to do that. To take his complaints out side the court’s chambers is just inappropriate and destructive of the institution. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was called The Great Dissenter. He did not go out to the local meetings of the Grand Army of the Republic or of the Republican Party to rage at, mock and generally attack the decisions from which he dissented. I suspect that Justice Scalia is so convinced that he alone is right and that anyone who disagrees with him is a fool or a scoundrel that he does no feel constrained to observe the conventions for public comment. This does not bode well for the court. It does not bode well for the law. Remember the court cannot enforce its own decisions. It is dependent on the police powers of the Executive and the good will and respect of the people to have its rulings given effect. To the extent that any Justice’s public comments detract from that public respect and injure the sense that the court speaks from honest evaluation of the fundamental rules that Justice does himself and the court a disservice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-moment-of-your-time-please-justice-scalia/209243.md?page=5)