I hate Scalia because he’s a homophobic misanthrope who made it clear in his Lawrence decision that he considers people like me to be dangerous, sub-human vermin.
I look forward to his death eventual death, and hope it is painful. Him and his little dog, Thomas, too.
Ahem. I don’t “worship” any particular member of government, and while I respect Scalia as a thoughtful proponent of a particular brand of strict constructionism, that respect is not tantamount to hero worship. Indeed, I criticize Scalia when I think it appropriate to do so (the first two paragraphs of the concluding section of his Lawrence dissent being a case in point).
I really, really, really get sick of hearing this shit. If you defend Bush on a more than sporadic basis, you’re a Bush-lover. If you take Scalia’s side on more cases than you don’t, you’re a Scalia-worshipper. On the SDMB it seems that you can’t advance a particular ideology without being accused of idolatry.
Hey, how about this for a thought: I evaluate each circumstance as I see fit, and if that happens to line up with the viewpoints of certain individuals, well, that’s just the way the ball bounces. I don’t march in lockstep with anyone, and if it looks like I am, that’s just happenstance.
My, aren’t you classy.
Between this and KellyM’s utterly baseless slanders, the “hate Scalia” club (as opposed to the “mere disagreement with Scalia” club) is looking less and less attractive by the day.
The man want’s me to be permanently rendered a sub-human non-citizen who can be arrested just for having sex with the person I love. How could anyone not hate such a vile bigot?
Scalia is a thoughtful and incisive jurist, perhaps America’s strongest exponent since Hugo Black for a philosophy of jurisprudence that I can respect if not agree with. He is also extremely arrogant and pompous, firmly convinced of the absolute rightness of his views to the point that he seems to give no credence to the idea that someone can differ with him in good faith. (That alone distinguishes him from our Dewey!) The “duck hunt affair” arises because he seems to be convinced that nobody could possibly see him as anything but morally upright and impartial.
He is also a devout Catholic, and, while I am not prone to bringing religion into these things and certainly don’t want to sound like I’m Catholic-bashing, his strong adherence to Catholic “natural law” philosophy seems to be a strong (and in my mind inappropriate) influence on his jurisprudence. (See the Lawrence dissent for examples.)
In summary, he’s something of a prick – but a smart prick.
Strictly speaking, Scalia just thinks that decisions on sodomy laws should be left to the states, given that the constitution is utterly silent on the issue.
But even taking your hypothesis as true, I’ll let someone more eloquent than I answer this question:
And when exactly did Scalia say that gays (I’m assuming that who you are referring to) aren’t entitled to citizenship or to be considered “human”? The man obviously has some issues with gay sex, if you read the dissent in Lawrence, but he has no ability to outlaw gay sex, merely to decide whether a particular state such as Texas can outlaw it.
When was the last time you lobbied your state legislature (or the legislature of some state like Texas that bans homosexual sodomy) to overturn any laws that allow for arrest for having sex with the person you love? That’s how the political process works…
People, I think there is something very important missing here.
Let me explain this way: have you ever heard of a case called DeShaney v. Winnebago County?
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/634/
This case will break your heart. It tells a tragic story wherein an abusive father gets custody of a child, then beats it into retardartion and coma. It tells the story of a state that fails to act after repeated warnings.
But that’s not what will break your heart. What breaks your heart is when you realize that the court might well have been right on this one: that the due process clause does not make the state responsible for the conduct of private actors. What breaks your heart is when you realize that the law isn’t really about justice per se, it’s about the law.
Scalia may rule in ways you think are unjust. I think so too. And he may rule in those ways because he’s a prick. But he does have a point when he argues that the SC is not the venue for deciding certain issues: that it cannot stretch the law just to achieve something that we all think is good. Maybe he doesn’t really believe this, and he’s just a shill in the end. But what he ARGUES, what he PURPORTS to be saying, is not something you can just dismiss out of hand.
In many cases, I DO reject his argument. But I don’t disrespect the argument. And whether or not I might have reason to disrespect the man is irrelevant. I can hate his guts all I want: that wouldn’t necessarily make him wrong.
Nonsense. The Constitution, as interpreted by everyone with both a functioning brainstem and a human heart, clearly protects privacy. What could be more private than what two consenting adults do in their bedroom?
Dr. King was also martyred for his cause. No thanks.
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?
Really? Given that the Constitution was in effect for over 184 years before anyone actually drew that conclusion (and that there is arguable–though not conclusive–evidence that the court that established privacy manipulated their docket in a way to establish that right in incremental ways), I suspect that you are guilty both of exaggeration and a bit of historical revisionism.
Clearly? Tee-hee! That’s so cute!
Kindly point me to where the Constitution “clearly” protects a general right to privacy. It doesn’t, at least not “clearly” – one has to reach for slippery concepts like “emanations and penumbras” to reach the conclusion that there is a privacy right embedded in there somewhere.
So refusing to hate your enemies puts you at risk of martyrdom? That idea is pretty, well, insane, frankly.
More to the point: do you disagree with the things Dr. King was talking about in the posted excerpt?
You presuppose the Constitution is a “living document,” by which I take it you think its meaning ought to be malleable by the judiciary in whatever way you see fit. You are assuming your conclusion is true in one of your theses.
But to answer the question: because judges aren’t God. They don’t have any better claim on metaphysical capital-L Liberty or metaphysical capital-J Justice than anyone else. For them to exceed the bounds of the limits established by the constitution’s text is for them to exceed the authority granted to their office – in a system based on the consent of the governed, what is or isn’t a “constitutional right” is properly determined by the amendment process, not by creative reinterpretation.
Sure, hug your enemies. Gives them a good vantage point from which to put a knife in your back.
Yes, in this case.
The people who oppose my equality are EVIL PEOPLE who are FILLED WITH HATRED for anyone who is different than them. They cannot be reasoned with, cannot be persuaded. They are fundamentally terrible people, untrustworthy religious fanatics who have no capacity to learn or grow. To turn my cheek towards them (again) would simply be to invite my destruction.
When both sides are good people, then you can respond to hate with love.
But there are no good people on the anti-equality side of this debate.
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.
Also to Dewey: I beleive spectrum was speaking about Scalia on a personal level rather than a judicial one, interpreting his dissent in Lawrence to signal that “if he had the legal power to do so, I believe he would…” etc. etc.
Of course, that begs the question of whether that matters, assuming that he’s professional enough not to let his personal beliefs get in the way of his honest interpretation of the law…
Because that spread is not necessarily the role of the judiciary anymore than it is the role of the mint to print tons of extra new money nonstop because they think it would help the economy. When government overstep their bounds, you might like what they do one day, but what if they also do things you think hurt liberty the next day? Where are you then? What if the SC decides that the constitution really does protect traditional marriage?
Who do you think Dr. King was referring to? Happly little pro-segregation pixies? Does the name Bull Connor mean anything to you?
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. 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.” 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?
Yes, and in a thread asking why the leading proponent of strict constructionism is hated, may I ask why this result is shocking to you?
Hatred for Scalia is present in no small part due to his judicial philosophy. In discussing that hatred, and whether that hatred is warranted, an inquiry into the relative merits of that philosophy is inevitable – indeed, it is a necessary component of the discussion.
Unless, of course, you’d like for us to continue pillorying you for levying wholly unsubstantiated, pulled-straight-out-of-your-ass accusations at Justice Scalia.