# Why is there so much hatred toward Justice Scalia? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329 "2004-02-15T08:12:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/41 "2004-02-15T23:02:45Z")
The only time that I can think of off the top of my head where Scalia seemed to choose principle over his personal beliefs was his feeling that the flag-burning law was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. And, for that I respect him…It certainly makes him a step ahead of Robert Bork who is pretty much as close to “political evil incarnate” as one can come IMHO ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/42 "2004-02-15T23:03:42Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > What if the SC decides that the constitution really does protect traditional marriage? I would react the same way I would should the FMA pass: I would move to Canada, and every July 4 celebrate by burning an American flag. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/43 "2004-02-15T23:04:54Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Why not? What good is the power to interpret a flexible, living document like the Constitution if it can’t be used to spread the inherent good of liberty farther and wider? do you really want to trust in scalia’s, thomas’s, and rhenquist’s definitions of “inherent good and liberty”? there are things in the constitution that protect us from various interferences from the government. reading too deeply into these cuts both ways; it probably cuts _toward_ civil liberties of individuals moreso than it cuts for them. history has shown this to be the case, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/44 "2004-02-15T23:14:01Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Who bent the law for the Republican Party in their infamous 2000 election decision. That alone renders him hateworthy. He also feels there is no right to privacy to be found in the Constitution – his strict reading thus renders what I feel is a profoundly un-American sentiment. He belongs in some Third World banana republic court, not America’s court. > > And he’s refusing to recuse himself from a case involving Dick Cheney after going duck hunting with him immediately prior to hearing a case involving him. > > He’s a cheap fraud at best, a traitorous scumbag at worst. I lean toward the traitorous scumbag theory. Been reading Bugliosi? ---
**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:** [February 15, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/45 "2004-02-15T23:23:12Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Fine. So, I am looking forward to you explaining how the Bush vs. Gore case didn’t involve any overextension and was much more justified in the Constitution than any right of privacy. I agree that _Bush v. Gore_ is a highly arguable decision; indeed, there is much to criticize about it. However, unlike a right to privacy, there are actual textual grounds for the court’s decision – namely the equal protection clause for the majority, and for the concurring opinion which Scalia also joined, Article II and certain provisions of federal election law. Say what you will about the opinion, it doesn’t involve the wholesale insertion of new provisions into the Constitution. > [@jshore](#): > > Maybe there is a compelling argument that can be offered, but it seems curious to me that Scalia’s concerns about going beyond the Constitution seem to dovetail closely with his own personal beliefs. I don’t think you find him saying, “Well, personally, I believe strongly that homosexuals should be extended full rights to have consensual sex as they choose and support laws that codify this and oppose laws the restrict this” or “Personally I believe that a woman should have full access to abortion in the first trimester and support laws to codify this.” I think most judges look askance at a blatant injection of political advocacy such as you describe into a judicial opinion. An opinion is not a political tract. A judge should, out of respect for the coordinate branches of government, refrain from suggesting that they take a particular course of legislative action. Having said that, the closest thing I can see to what you describe would be Thomas’ dissent in _Lawrence_, where he called the Texas law “uncommonly silly,” though constitutional. > [@jshore](#): > > In fact, can you point me to any cases where Scalia seems to feel strongly personally that a view should be codified in law but just can’t bring himself to find it explicitly in the Constitution? I’m not sure how one would find such a thing, given that Scalia, like most judges, doesn’t make his views on legislative matters known publicly. Of course, Scalia has taken positions that are distasteful to many conservatives – he joined the majority in _Texas v. Johnson_, the flag-burning case, for example (and correctly so, I might add). And he has been critical of earlier jurisprudence that was activist in a conservative direction, e.g., _Lochner v. New York_. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/46 "2004-02-15T23:52:19Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Why not? What good is the power to interpret a flexible, living document like the Constitution if it can’t be used to spread the inherent good of liberty farther and wider? And yet those SOBs have constrained our liberty to own sawed-off shotguns, just because the founders didn’t contemplate those when they wrote the 2nd Amendment! We can only hope for the day that this living document is construed to keep up with the times, so that we all can enjoy our liberty to stockpile full-auto with a bayonet attachment and foldable stock, RPGs, etc. You see, this whole “living document” thing can be played not only in ways you think are noble and just, but in ways that you might think are nasty and dangerous. Thats why folks like Scalia find that rationale troubling. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/47 "2004-02-16T00:06:47Z")
> [@schplebordnik](#): > > Thats why folks like Scalia find that rationale troubling. Folks like Scalia find it troubling because then they’d have to recognize the inherent equality and decency and humanity of homosexuals, people they hate and detest and hope to lock up and/or destroy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/48 "2004-02-16T00:11:00Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > The vote in _Bush v. Gore_ was 7-2, wasn’t it? It looks that way in the [decision](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html). > > So, how about those other two traitorous Democrat judges? Are they de facto Republican slimeballs too? The critical vote was the 5-4 decision, which went strictly along party lines. And you know, the dead giveaway was that the Scumbag Supremes declared that the decision couldn’t be used as precedent in future decisions. They knew what they were doing. They belong in jail, not on the bench. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/49 "2004-02-16T00:15:03Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > [At any rate, I personally do not endorse **Evil Captor** ’s use of the word “traitorous” in reference to any of these Supreme Court justices because I think the Right has been good enough at labeling people as traitorous or treasonous and I’d rather not see the Left join them in this game.] I call them traitors because they were party to the theft of a Presidential election. That’s a fairly specific rationale, not like Coulter and her, “anybody that disses a conservative president’s programs is a traitor because it encourages foreigners who disagree wth him.” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/50 "2004-02-16T00:41:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The critical vote was the 5-4 decision, which went strictly along party lines. And you know, the dead giveaway was that the Scumbag Supremes declared that the decision couldn’t be used as precedent in future decisions. Yeah…I must admit that this was a strange thing to do. Does our resident conservative legal scholar, DCU, have any way to make this sound reasonable? I have already seen the editorial page of the WSJ lambast a lower court decision that did cite Bush vs. Gore as precedent (but this time to yield a conclusion that the editorial page did not like). Of course, the WSJ editorial page is one of the few organizations that can do this while showing no shame whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/51 "2004-02-16T00:46:40Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Folks like Scalia find it troubling because then they’d have to recognize the inherent equality and decency and humanity of homosexuals, people they hate and detest and hope to lock up and/or destroy. Oh, I see, so all the prior decisions that Scalia wrote throughout his judicial career espousing strict Constitutional construction were merely his evil plot to have an established judicial philosophy by which he could eventually rule that sodomy laws were Constitutional? He is an evil genius after all – and with incredible foresight – I mean, he saw Lawrence coming about 15 years ago and hatched up this sinister plot! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/52 "2004-02-16T00:47:29Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I think most judges look askance at a blatant injection of political advocacy such as you describe into a judicial opinion. An opinion is not a political tract. A judge should, out of respect for the coordinate branches of government, refrain from suggesting that they take a particular course of legislative action > > … > > I’m not sure how one would find such a thing, given that Scalia, like most judges, doesn’t make his views on legislative matters known publicly. Okay, but what you are then positing is that perhaps Scalia is really a closet moderate to liberal in his true political beliefs and it is only with a heavy heart that he feels the courts must not weigh in on sodomy laws and abortion and the like. Forgive me if I find this scenario unlikely. (I’d also suggest that Scalia, like what Thomas did, does seem capable of betraying his personal beliefs in his opinions but that might be tougher to prove.) > [@](#): > > Having said that, the closest thing I can see to what you describe would be Thomas’ dissent in _Lawrence_, where he called the Texas law “uncommonly silly,” though constitutional. Well, I give Thomas a little credit here. > [@](#): > > Of course, Scalia has taken positions that are distasteful to many conservatives – he joined the majority in _Texas v. Johnson_, the flag-burning case, for example (and correctly so, I might add). And he has been critical of earlier jurisprudence that was activist in a conservative direction, e.g., _Lochner v. New York_. Yeah, I did note the flag case as being the one exception I could think of. I would have to look up what Lochner vs. New York is. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/53 "2004-02-16T01:01:04Z")
KellyM said: > [@](#): > > Congratulations. This thread has now been morphed into Yet Another Debate between “living constitution” theory and “strict constructionalism” theory. Been there, done that, got the student loans to prove it. Um, as opposed to a thread in which people make accusations of illegal activity against a sitting Supreme Court justice without even the slightest shred of evidence to back it up? It’s kind of odd – the subject of this thread asks why people hate Scalia. Instead of taking the opportunity to enlighten people as to the validity of your cause, you have instead put off anybody who _might_ have listened to you with ridiculous and baseless accusations. Congratulations on helping those who suppose Scalia! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/54 "2004-02-16T01:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I would react the same way I would should the FMA pass: I would move to Canada, and every July 4 celebrate by burning an American flag. You’re completely avoiding the question: a question that YOU motivated. So, you think it would be a good system if, purely on the say-so of a single unelected person, the society could be so radically altered that you would leave it and curse it? Even if the society as a whole doesn’t agree with that person? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/55 "2004-02-16T02:17:03Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > Congratulations. This thread has now been morphed into Yet Another Debate between “living constitution” theory and “strict constructionalism” theory. Been there, done that, got the student loans to prove it. You are right, to an extent. The thread is victim to a rhetorical trick called “framing” that Dewey uses fairly consistently when Scalia is brought forth. He maintains that Scalia is misunderstood, that he is a strict constructionist and that the decisions for which I and others excoriate him are not the product of a hateful, twisted mind but strong commitment to a sound Constitutional doctrine. This shifts the grounds of the argument to “living constitution” vs. “strict constructionism,” but it doesn’t have to be this way. We are not lawyers, this is not a court of law – this is a discussion board – and we are under no compulsion to evaluate Scalia on strictly legal grounds, however much Dewey and others might wish us to. We might, in fact, ask the following question – does Scalia’s attraction to strict Constructionism follow from a noble following of sound doctrine, or is it merely a convenient club which he can use to bash the hopes and dreams of Americans whose beliefs he finds offensive? In short, is Scalia the noble soul Dewey and other apologists paint him as, nobly following the dictates of strict constructionism for the greater good or is he the villainous orge I think he is, secretly delighting in the effects his decisions have on those he dislikes? To decide this, we can look at his behavior as a human being and also at those decisions that he has made that can illuminate his real feelings. We can also use common sense. We are not like the OJ jury, allowed only to examine the evidence that lawyers think we should. We can look at anything we want to. I think the 2000 decision is an obvious piece of political pandering – a case where Scalia clearly used the law to further political ends. I think his refusal to recuse himself in the Cheney case further illuminates his lack of character. I think his decision on the flag burning case is just the sort of thing a sly partisan would do. He gets cred for following his conscience against conservative doctrine, while preserving for partisans on the left and right – mostly the left – a rhetorical tool that does nothing but enrage veterans and turn the mainstream against them. Speaking as a libeal, flag burning is the stupidest rhetorical argument I know of. Gee thanks Justice Scalia. You damned scumbag. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/56 "2004-02-16T02:36:16Z")
I said: > [@](#): > > Congratulations on helping those who suppose Scalia! Er. That should be “support” not “suppose.” ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/57 "2004-02-16T02:56:21Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think the 2000 decision is an obvious piece of political pandering – a case where Scalia clearly used the law to further political ends. And demonstrating even more the evilness and nefariousness of Scalia, he tricked the four (or 6, depending on which part of the decision you are reading) other justices to not only vote his way – but he mind controlled them into making it a per curium decision, and mind controlled Rehnquist into writing the concurring opinion so that his dastardly fingerprints could not be found on the decision! Its a wonder he didn’t hit any ducks on his shooting trip, as you think he would have been able to mind control those ducks into running into his shotgun pellets. Or perhaps he did hit ducks, and mind controlled Dick “Halliburton” Cheney and the rest of the shooting party into thinking he didn’t! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/58 "2004-02-16T03:45:07Z")
> [@schplebordnik](#): > > And demonstrating even more the evilness and nefariousness of Scalia, he tricked the four (or 6, depending on which part of the decision you are reading) other justices to not only vote his way – but he mind controlled them into making it a per curium decision, and mind controlled Rehnquist into writing the concurring opinion so that his dastardly fingerprints could not be found on the decision! You’re quite right, of course. Rhenquist and the rest should be held to account for their “decision” as well. But careful observation will show that this thread is about Scalia. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/59 "2004-02-16T04:06:57Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You are right, to an extent. The thread is victim to a rhetorical trick called “framing” that Dewey uses fairly consistently when Scalia is brought forth. He maintains that Scalia is misunderstood, that he is a strict constructionist and that the decisions for which I and others excoriate him are not the product of a hateful, twisted mind but strong commitment to a sound Constitutional doctrine. > > This shifts the grounds of the argument to “living constitution” vs. “strict constructionism,” but it doesn’t have to be this way. We are not lawyers, this is not a court of law – this is a discussion board – and we are under no compulsion to evaluate Scalia on strictly legal grounds, however much Dewey and others might wish us to. > > \ > > I think the 2000 decision is an obvious piece of political pandering – a case where Scalia clearly used the law to further political ends. Actually that is an example of the “Fallacy of Composition”. Because every ruling by Scalia is not purely one of strict constuctionism, he cannot be called a constructionist. If you are going to accuse Scalia of “impurity”, then the least you can do is give us a good statistical example of SCotUS rulings and show that Scalia is “less pure in ideology” than the other justices. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329/60 "2004-02-16T04:26:55Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You are right, to an extent. The thread is victim to a rhetorical trick called “framing” that Dewey uses fairly consistently when Scalia is brought forth. He maintains that Scalia is misunderstood, that he is a strict constructionist and that the decisions for which I and others excoriate him are not the product of a hateful, twisted mind but strong commitment to a sound Constitutional doctrine. actually i haven’t seen **Dewey** defend scalia as such. he certainly defended the doctrine which scalia appears to support, and which i, to an extent, also support (this is a bit of a change for me). but i, in my careful observation, have seen scalia attacked just as thoroughly as anyone would expect from the strict constructionists when his opinions espoused a habit that went against the strict constructionist doctrine, and in which his dictum attacked the litigants rather than defending the constitutional basis for his decisions. i have seen different sides of the man himself, and heard various stories which attack and defend his character. i haven’t read enough of his opinions (specifically, i haven’t yet read _Lawrence_) to form a judgement one way or the other. i do note that his opinions tend to promote a society which i would not voluntarily be a part of, but if they remain true to his constitutional views, i can’t fault him for. the point: i think anyone who attacks strict constructionism as a basis for attacking scalia lacks a basis for an attack at all. the first instances (and majority of instances) in which “substantive due process” was used by the supreme court’s opinion supported fewer civil rights for individuals and promoted a conservative doctrine. it is a knife that cuts both ways, and it, based on the people who’ve thus far used it, cuts into civil liberties more than away from them. so if you have a problem with scalia’s character as a person, be my guest and denounce him. if you have a problem with the doctrine he espouses, leave the man himself alone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-there-so-much-hatred-toward-justice-scalia/229329.md?page=4)