Vehement dissents becoming majority opinion a few years or decades later is par for the course, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bowers v. Hardwick merely being some of the most prominent. The only difference is that those dissenters wanted to be right while Scalia wanted to be wrong. 
Gosh, I wish hypothetical me would let me speak for myself.
That’s not what happened here (or what this thread is about).
Scalia’s dissent is not what became majority law. Scalia asserted that the majority’s reasoning would inevitably lead to gay marriage. The majority itself disputed that their ruling contained this implication. Scalia was correct, and this particular assertion was itself cited when that extrapolation (from the majority opinion) occurred.
I think what F-P is trying to say is that Scalia had a magic mirror that allowed him to gaze into the future.
No one is being deliberately myopic. If anything, you are, by focusing on one aspect while discarding the rest. We are looking at his claim as a whole, which includes the bigotry that you set aside.
And we don’t see any point in disproving a claim the OP never made. He never said it was a conspiracy, just that he was right to be worried–despite no proof that they were.
I’m glad you’re able to polish the turd and get some meaning out of it, but that doesn’t make everyone else wrong–let alone deliberately so. No need for the swipe.
So, do you play the ponies?
Hey, we’re all trying to adjust to transgender issues here; let’s not move on to bestiality quite so fast!
Dammit, Plant, we’ve already covered bestiality!
When someone says “You would have called me paranoid in 2008 if I said these positive things were coming down the pike for trans folk,” I think that’s laughable. Why? Because if you are for trans rights, you don’t call people “paranoid” if they are afraid of coming trans rights. You call them “bigots.”
I don’t think those who support LGBTQ people in 2008 would have thought recognition of trans rights were never coming. Probably not that they would be recognized so soon.
So, the most likely response? “From your lips to God’s ears.” Or “I hope you’re right.”
But . . . but . . . We talked about this, man! I’ve already ordered the explosives, the gas, the genetic-engineering equipment and the Thai ladyboys! Now you say we have to wait until 2024?!
Terror away. I only mention 2024. Plenty of other years for everybody.
I think the people most worried about the Transgender in the Bathroom issue are those Republicans who are afraid this might affect their toe-tapping “wide stance” bathroom pickups. They want to make sure that the gent in the next stall offering them a BJ is a “real manly man”.
Suppose I observe today that Donald Trump, if elected, is likely going to colonize the moon and detain Muslims suspected of terrorism there in the hope of evading legal protections. You would call me a left-wing paranoid. If that actually came to pass in 2024, would that make your statement today incorrect or unreasonable? Would I thereby be proven to be reasonable in my fear? Of course not.
That’s not how rational probabilities work. If I bet big in a massive bluff holding a gutshot straight before the river card is flipped in Texas Hold’em, you would be correct to call that bluff every time even if I make the straight. The OP would be the guy who gets the lucky draw and declares that his opponents don’t understand math.
Been there. Posted there.
Odd that you would direct me there and not the poster making the claim since that thread demonstrates how unclear the whole issue is. But whatever…
I, for one, want to know which liberals were posed with the question of transgender bathroom access 8 years ago that a conservative can be said to be proven right.
This whole topic is a big game of “You didn’t listen to us, now we’re right, so listen to us in the future!” But specific issues of transgender bathroom access wasn’t on anyone’s minds 8 years ago, nobody with any sense posed that question to anyone. Conservatives want to look like prophets for predicting something, but they never predicted it. They are taking a current issue and pretending they gave a shit about it and saying they’re right.
And my biggest objection to that logic aside from the time-traveling bigot theory, is that the OP assumes conservatives were in the right side morally. Here’s what I would say if I were asked this 8 years ago: “Really, transgendered people get to openly express their civil rights too? That’s wonderful!” In that case, conservatives may be right, but they were right about how bigoted they were 8 years ago.
Maybe conservatives should look at other bigoted views they have now, and predict for us which one they will be regretting in 8 years? You guys wanna be helpful? Be less bigoted now instead of later
A legal opinion is not the same as demonstrating hidden intent (though by Scalia pulling the tactic of “If we allow sodomy, then the gays might could get married!”, it truly reveals what a shitty justice and human being he was).
I am amused to see how a conservative blog portrays these ghastly events:
My god, where will our decadence end?
As I’ve said before, otherwise they might accidentally cheat on their wives.
He didn’t say it was hidden intent. He said that the reasoning used in that particular decision, once applied to gay marriage, would lead to that conclusion.
Ah, but the OP deals with hidden (or unacknowledged or unexpressed) intent. Glad you see the difference now.