# Justice Scalia - One Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807 "2004-11-15T03:03:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/21 "2004-11-17T18:11:01Z")
“Justice Scalia, do these pants make me look fat?” ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/22 "2004-11-18T03:41:06Z")
Someone asked him about the 2000 election yesterday and he said “It’s been four years. GET OVER IT.” He’s such a jerk, he’s almost loveable. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/23 "2004-11-18T15:08:37Z")
OK, then, I would like to know if he would consider such laws constitutional. But I would also be curious as to what his personal beliefs are on the subject. It sure sounded to me like Scalia was lumping all those sexual practices that are pretty far outside the norm of most peoples’ experience with something practiced by just about everybody. And favoring laws against it. I would like to know if I’m misinterpreting his statement. If so, I apologize. If not, I wish he’d admit that he, a US Supreme Court justice who helps _decide_ whether laws are constitutional, approves of (and considers constitutional) laws against masturbation. > [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Scalia would undoubtedly respond that it doesn’t matter whether he thinks they are a “good thing” for purposes of his job. His job is only to determine whether such laws are _unconstitutional_. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/24 "2004-11-18T15:22:23Z")
> [@Kel Varnsen - Latex Division](#): > > I may in the not too distant future have a chance to ask Justice Scalia a question at lecture he is giving. If you could ask one question of Justice Scalia what would it be? "Justice Scalia, you recently advised that the Sureme Court should not take up questions of morality, but instead stick strictly to interpretations of Constitutional language. It is reported that you included such items as ‘abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, gender equality at military schools, and assisted suicide’ as being moral issues. You are quoted as saying, ‘When the Constitution was decided, all those acts were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries. There was no credible argument that the Constitution made those laws invalid.’ Would you be kind enough to establish that you are not begging the question on two key questions? First, why are the items on your list moral questions, whereas many other questions ostensibly are not. Surely there are many people who reasonably conclude that the line between reasonable and unreasonable search and seisure, for example, has a moral component just as compelling as gay marriage. And second, how do you know that those who had passed laws at the time the Constitution was had fully worked through all the implications of the Constitution and adjusted their laws accordingly. Franklin was a scientist on par with Einstein for his discovery and investigation of electricity; but he did not discover relativity. Is it not equally reasonable that the Founding Fathers achieved earth-shaking advances in governance without having closed the book on the subject? Thank you for your consideration." ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/25 "2004-11-22T18:57:24Z")
Any updates? Did’ja get to see him? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/26 "2004-11-22T20:46:31Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > OK, then, I would like to know if he would consider such laws constitutional. > > But I would also be curious as to what his personal beliefs are on the subject. > > It sure sounded to me like Scalia was lumping all those sexual practices that are pretty far outside the norm of most peoples’ experience with something practiced by just about everybody. And favoring laws against it. > > I would like to know if I’m misinterpreting his statement. If so, I apologize. > > If not, I wish he’d admit that he, a US Supreme Court justice who helps _decide_ whether laws are constitutional, approves of (and considers constitutional) laws against masturbation. You are misinterpreting his statement. Your misinterpretation is based upon the fallacy that believing that a particular law is constitutional means you are in favor of such a law, and believing that a particular law is unconstitutional means you are opposed to such a law. That is not the case. As an example, I would be in favor of a law barring all campaign contributions, and financing all campaigns by the public. But I recognize that such a law would be unconstitutional. Sua ---
**Author:** ![jgroub](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b77776/32.png) [@jgroub](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jgroub)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/27 "2004-11-23T16:58:22Z")
I had this opportunity with Justice Blackmun 10 years ago. I asked him about his decision in a school funding case. I think it was called Rodriguez v. Texas. IIRC, the case decided that local property taxes were an acceptable way to fund schools, so that wealthier communities funded their schools more than poorer schools did. He voted to uphold the Texas law allowing this; however, this was before his “conversion,” so to speak - supreme court scholars note a shift to the right in his opinions occurring in the late 70s. So I asked him if about if he would change his vote on it today. He all but said that that decision should be revisited, and implied that he would have voted differently if it had. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/28 "2004-11-24T04:52:33Z")
Justice Scalia dissented from the decision in _Lawrence_, which is to say, he believed the court’s decision in _Lawrence_ to be unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, asserted that the decision in _Lawrence_ would allow laws against masturbation to be overturned. Ergo, Justice Scalia believes that laws against masturbation are constitutional. Which is to say, he would rule in favor of any federal, state or county government that decided to pass such a law. Is this the case? (IANAL). > [@SuaSponte](#): > > You are misinterpreting his statement. Your misinterpretation is based upon the fallacy that believing that a particular law is constitutional means you are in favor of such a law, and believing that a particular law is unconstitutional means you are opposed to such a law. That is not the case. > > As an example, I would be in favor of a law barring all campaign contributions, and financing all campaigns by the public. But I recognize that such a law would be unconstitutional. > > Sua ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/29 "2004-11-24T06:04:10Z")
Are we allowed to interpret the word “question” broadly enough to encompass physical assault with blunt instruments? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/30 "2004-11-24T09:35:18Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > Justice Scalia dissented from the decision in _Lawrence_, which is to say, he believed the court’s decision in _Lawrence_ to be unconstitutional. > > Justice Scalia, in his dissent, asserted that the decision in _Lawrence_ would allow laws against masturbation to be overturned. > > Ergo, Justice Scalia believes that laws against masturbation are constitutional. > > Which is to say, he would rule in favor of any federal, state or county government that decided to pass such a law. > > Is this the case? > > (IANAL). From Scalia’s dissent: > [@](#): > > The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2004, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/31 "2004-11-24T15:10:09Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > Justice Scalia dissented from the decision in _Lawrence_, which is to say, he believed the court’s decision in _Lawrence_ to be unconstitutional. Technically, he’s saying the court’s decision is incorrect, not that it’s unconstitutional. A judicial opinion, no matter how silly, can’t be unconstitutional; see, e.g., _Marbury v. Madison_. > [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > Justice Scalia, in his dissent, asserted that the decision in _Lawrence_ would allow laws against masturbation to be overturned. > > Ergo, Justice Scalia believes that laws against masturbation are constitutional. > > Which is to say, he would rule in favor of any federal, state or county government that decided to pass such a law. > > Is this the case? > > (IANAL). Yes, but this does not mean he favors laws against masturbation as a matter of policy. It only means he believes the constitution does not forbid laws against masturbation. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807/32 "2004-11-24T21:51:24Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Yes, but this does not mean he favors laws against masturbation as a matter of policy. It only means he believes the constitution does not forbid laws against masturbation. Bingo. If I had a proper command of the English language, I would have said that in my earlier post. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-scalia-one-question/274807.md?page=1)