“Justice Scalia, do these pants make me look fat?”
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.
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.
"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."
Any updates? Did’ja get to see him?
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
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.
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).
Are we allowed to interpret the word “question” broadly enough to encompass physical assault with blunt instruments?
From Scalia’s dissent:
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.
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