OK 
If Scalia feels free to cast the first stone, I’ll cast The Second Stone. (And yes, that’s what the handle means.) Scalia doesn’t behave like a judge, but as though he were law school’s version of Dick Cheney. He deserves no respect.
Supreme Court decisions have implications beyond the specific case being argued. The justices ask questions both to demonstrate a point/influence their colleages and to probe the consequences of ruling one way or another. The questions can help the justices decide how broad or narrow they’d like the decision to be in addition to helping them decide whether or not to grant the petitioner’s requests.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate appeals court. Their decisions can have wide ranging effects or be very narrow rulings. The Supreme Court isn’t last because they are right, they are right because they are last. Because of this, the Supremes ask many questions for many varied reasons. They could be making a point, trying to influence the other Justices, or probing the lawyers in order to search for possible consequences or unintended consequences of their impending decision.
Scalia said he had no position on one issue and you convinced yourself it must mean that Scalia believes same sex couples are bad parents??? I recommend that you take bienville advice.
Would that work for the guy perfoming the marriages. If this clerk feel the law is unconstitutional can he say that and not marry gays?
Kagen and Kennedy were also asking questions. Maybe you should consider a third and fourth stone. How do you expect Supreme Court Justices clarify any issues they may have if you don’t want them asking questions in an attempt to do so?
Of course. The 13th Amendment allows him to quit his job at any time.
Scalia is trolling, not asking questions. He’s deliberately being an ass. That’s one thing to do on the internet, but not really appropriate of a judge.
Hahahaha. Supreme Court Justices are “trolling”. That’s a good one. On a serious note, for all you “know”, after becoming familiar with all of the previous court documents, the amicus curiae, the last two days of questioning, and the close door debate(s) with the other Justices, Scalia may rule in your favor. You shouldn’t give up so quickly.
Different justices approach the law from different starting points, and some of us can appreciate that. If you have a specific quote that you’d like to put forward as “trolling”, perhaps you should start a thread dedicated to that. Making a blanket statement as you have with absolutely no back-up argument is, well, underwhelming to say the least.
I’m repeating what Rachel Maddow observed, and it seems correct. He says these outrageous things (comparing homosexuality to murder) to get a reaction. She was at the arguments, and he was apparently looking to the crowd in anticipation of the gasps. I’ll say it if I want to, it’s not as if I’m upsetting the decorum (or disrupting the process) of the courtroom like he is. He may very well rule “in my favor” (whatever that is) but I’m not going to hold my breath till Scalia turns blue, being a dick on the bench and in various speaking engagements is decidedly unjudicial. He is the worst justice in the history of the court, including McReynolds.
You may want to reconsider using political pundits, who make their living by shocking and enraging their viewers/listeners as a reliable data source.
Note, I am not anti pundit, their ability to drive ratings is amazing but they are paid to opine in an entertaining way. They are not subject matter experts or even journalists (in relation to their shows content).
To expand a little bit on the part of “maybe he will rule in your favor”, I don’t have a side in the case, haven’t studied constitutional law for 25 years. I’m in favor of gay marriage, and voted against Prop 8. I’d like to see California put the issue on the ballot again, but I can see the point of “you can’t take away a right once granted.” Personally, I don’t think rights are ever granted. They are struggled for an won. But that is beside the point. I’m a bit uneasy with overturning the idiotic will of the people, if it is on solid grounds of equal dignity of people through the constitution. It is too easy to turn that edged weapon against the people. I think gay people should be able to call themselves married and have their partners in marriage get all the same legal rights, benefits and obligations as other married people. There is no logical reason not to. Yes, there are religious reasons not to, but I’m not about to let other people force their religions on others if I can help it. Back in the 90s I was against gay marriage. But “eww, I’m an ignorant bigot” isn’t a logical reason, nor does it harm anyone what other people do with their lives in a marriage. So I changed my mind.
DOMA is actually an interesting federalism question from a purely academic point of view. People have a fundamental right to travel and settle in whatever state they want to and states are supposed to give full faith and credit to the laws of other states. I don’t see how Congress can take that away, Congress has only the powers granted by the Constitution, and withholding full faith and credit on a case by case basis (“eww”) isn’t among those. On the other hand, while people in California are probably ready to do this, and other states, perhaps the people in Kansas would be positively unready and freaked. Not that that is legal grounds.
I thought Maddow’s comments were very to the point. I’ve followed Scalia’s outrageous conduct for a quarter century, and this phrase absolutely describes it. Nor am I under the impression that I (or anybody else here) is any better than Maddow, who has just as much right to punditize as we do, or Mr. Limbaugh or someone else. When she’s right, she’s right, and I’m not going to use her phrase without credit. She found the phrase I had been searching for a long time to find. I don’t watch her show, but I did see her interview on the Daily Show and thought her comments worthwhile.
Scalia has ghastly behavior for a judge and always has. He makes inappropriate comments at public speaking events, hears the cases of his personal friends, and writes opinions that have quite a bit of venom in them. He makes Judge Judy seem merely rude and brusque by comparison.
Have you ever considered that maybe he believe the things he says?
I am not saying that is better but you are claiming he is saying them to get a rise out of people. If you have been noticing this for 25 years why don’t you consider that he may have poor social skills.
Nothing, either the appeal to authority by saying you are just repeating what a pundit said nor this post suggests he was “trolling”
Maddow, Limbah, G Gordon Liddy they “troll”, that’s how they make their living. He has nothing to gain by “trolling” so why make that charge vs. considering the obvious. He is an old homophobic man who was conservative beliefs and is outspoken.
But I question your claim to have been watching him closely because he was downright tame during these hearings compared to his normal style.
While I agree that Scalia is a partisan dick of the highest order, he at least seems to have the requisite level of knowledge and ability required to be an SC Justice, and even asking dickish questions can serve the wider interest of the court. I don’t know how anyone could call him the “worst justice in the history of the court” while Clarence “Silent Clare” Thomas is sitting right there.
Seems? I really think you should edit “seems” out, when general polls are 58 percent in favor, 18-29 year olds are like 80 percent in favor.
etc.
Seniors might have anti-equality majority, but seniors die priddy soon…
Well, it is in all the countries which have it, and it should be true. Same rights for everyone. If gays get marriage equality, they should have adoption rights.
This is the only actual damage that non-gays can show, competition on the adoption markets.
what’s the difference between
" ***if ***they are" and “since they ***might ***be”?? I guess nothing. Both are speculative.
In the first version, the reason is only valid if the detriment is shown to happen. In the second, the reason is considered valid unless the detriment is shown NOT to happen. It’s a substantial shift of the burden of proof.
This appears to have confused you even more than your husband. The plaintiffs in both cases are the pro-SSM/anti-Prop 8 and DOMA people. You may be getting hung up on who the appellants are.
The standing issue exists in the Prop 8 case because the proponents of the measure were substituted for the state as the defendants (because the governor and attorney general refused to defend the measure against the constitutional challenge). While California law apparently says the proponents have standing, it’s not clear that federal law does.
There are no standing issues as to the plaintiffs in either case.