Justice Scalia says has not expressed view on gay marriage

Oct 2, 2013 Full story: Reuters 222

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.

Full Story
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Oct 2, 2013
Oh yeah, Scalia's a real mystery on that issue.... (eyes rolling)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Oct 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Oh yeah, Scalia's a real mystery on that issue....(eyes rolling)
LOL I agree.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3 Oct 2, 2013
So, what's he doing? Trying to get off the wrong side of history? It's definitely not what I would expect.
SirAndrew

Honolulu, HI

#4 Oct 2, 2013
Gee, I wonder how he feels about marriage equality. If he actually is the "originalist" he claims to be, then he should be all for gay marriage. The writers knew exactly what they were doing when they didn't include an exception list with the equality amendment. The fact that the writers made an exception in the Constitution for Africans and other slaves, limiting them as partial humans, shows they weren't shy about specifically excluding entire groups from enumerated rights. That gays existed was well known, even if that appellation was still two centuries away, and their unpopularity among the religious set is also well documented. That they were not singled out for exclusion demonstrates clearly that the writers, as well as those who debated and approved the Constitution and it's amendments, intended that gays should be included, along with all other unpopular groups.

So, Mr Justice Scalia, what's stopping you from declaring your support for this long withheld bit of equality? You know Jefferson would have approved it. And Adams and Franklin and Monroe and all the rest. It's time to put your Constitutional money where your originalist mouth is.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Oct 2, 2013
SirAndrew wrote:
Gee, I wonder how he feels about marriage equality. If he actually is the "originalist" he claims to be, then he should be all for gay marriage. The writers knew exactly what they were doing when they didn't include an exception list with the equality amendment. The fact that the writers made an exception in the Constitution for Africans and other slaves, limiting them as partial humans, shows they weren't shy about specifically excluding entire groups from enumerated rights. That gays existed was well known, even if that appellation was still two centuries away, and their unpopularity among the religious set is also well documented. That they were not singled out for exclusion demonstrates clearly that the writers, as well as those who debated and approved the Constitution and it's amendments, intended that gays should be included, along with all other unpopular groups.
So, Mr Justice Scalia, what's stopping you from declaring your support for this long withheld bit of equality? You know Jefferson would have approved it. And Adams and Franklin and Monroe and all the rest. It's time to put your Constitutional money where your originalist mouth is.
"The writers" ???!!! "equality amendment" ???!!!

ROFL !

Wanna point that one out ?:)

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#7 Oct 3, 2013
Scalia is scum.
Norton

Netherlands

#9 Oct 3, 2013
America could use many more great men who defend decency, morality and family values like the Honorable Justice Scalia!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10 Oct 3, 2013
But what would we use them for?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Oct 3, 2013
Dubya wrote:
Scalia is scum.
No. He is almost ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.

And if he's such a terrible man, then why was he confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 98 - 0 ? Not a SINGLE Democrat, even the crazed wild-eyed liberals like Howard Metzenbaum and Ted Kennedy voted against hi. They obviously thought he was A-OK !:)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Oct 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. He is almost ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.
And if he's such a terrible man, then why was he confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 98 - 0 ? Not a SINGLE Democrat, even the crazed wild-eyed liberals like Howard Metzenbaum and Ted Kennedy voted against hi. They obviously thought he was A-OK !:)
Because they didn't know what a nutjob he really was.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#13 Oct 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. He is almost ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.
And if he's such a terrible man, then why was he confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 98 - 0 ? Not a SINGLE Democrat, even the crazed wild-eyed liberals like Howard Metzenbaum and Ted Kennedy voted against hi. They obviously thought he was A-OK !:)
Aside from misleading testimony--which seems to be required to some extent for all nominees these day--the standards were quite different. Once upon a time, highly qualified appointees were approved by the Senate without so much political demagoguery. If Democratic appointments were handled with the same deference, we'd have a few more Ginsbergs on the panel.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Oct 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they didn't know what a nutjob he really was.
Right ! As a writer of articles in law journals, and as a federal judge, he had NO record whatsoever they could check. He was JUST a blank slate. No senator knew ANYTHING about him at all. All nominees should be so lucky to have a record like that.

And what specifically causes you to call him a "nutjob" ? Be specific.

And for the record, I do NOT agree with him 100% of the time.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#15 Oct 3, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from misleading testimony--which seems to be required to some extent for all nominees these day--the standards were quite different. Once upon a time, highly qualified appointees were approved by the Senate without so much political demagoguery. If Democratic appointments were handled with the same deference, we'd have a few more Ginsbergs on the panel.
Thank God we don't.

And "misleading testimony" ? What specifically are you referring to ? You dopey Dems and libs always make vague broad-brushed attacks on a persons character lie this, without ever giving any specific evidence to support your vitriolic attacks.
imom

Carol Stream, IL

#16 Oct 3, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from misleading testimony--which seems to be required to some extent for all nominees these day--the standards were quite different. Once upon a time, highly qualified appointees were approved by the Senate without so much political demagoguery. If Democratic appointments were handled with the same deference, we'd have a few more Ginsbergs on the panel.
I remember quite a few from Democrats over nominees for both Bush 41 and Bush 43 and even some of Reagon's nominees. Name all of the Obama nominees held up and see who has had the easier time-here's a hint his last name starts with O.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#17 Oct 3, 2013
Norton wrote:
America could use many more great men who defend decency, morality and family values like the Honorable Justice Scalia!
Hate is not a family value.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#18 Oct 3, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
But what would we use them for?
You have to feed the Lions something; but, he would probable be tough, stringy and bitter.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#19 Oct 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. He is almost ALWAYS fairly unbalanced.
There I fixed your typos for you.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#20 Oct 3, 2013
imom wrote:
<quoted text>I remember quite a few from Democrats over nominees for both Bush 41 and Bush 43 and even some of Reagon's nominees. Name all of the Obama nominees held up and see who has had the easier time-here's a hint his last name starts with O.
Mr. Obama has been very careful in his picks. He doesn't dare appoint anyone who's displayed the sensibilities of Ginsberg.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#21 Oct 3, 2013
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
There I fixed your typos for you.
So you cannot cite anytime he was "misleading" or untruthful, huh ?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#22 Oct 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you cannot cite anytime he was "misleading" or untruthful, huh ?
He claimed to be conservative and a strict constructionist. In point of fact, he has been eager to overthrow precedence and rule according to his personal preferences. He ignores the Constitution when it is inconvenient, as in EVERY gay rights issue that ever came before the court. He claims to believe in executive privilege, which is itself antithetical to the Constitution. Again, he is inconsistent even in his contempt for the Constitution that his swore to uphold: He is quite willing to tie the hands of executives whenever he disagrees with them. And he is even willing to ignore the votes of the legislature when he thinks he knows better.

In short, he is the very model of a modern conservative.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tufts University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Investigator: Missing plane flew over Malaysia (Mar '14) Mar '14 monkeysee 2
Girls with ADHD show other mental health risks (Mar '11) Jan '14 OPEN YOUR EYES 14
Girls with ADHD show other mental health risks (Jun '10) Jan '14 Petronilla 9
Man charged in abuse of 3 dogs (Apr '10) Jan '14 Kip 41
This is like asking 'could hurricane Hazel stri... (Oct '13) Oct '13 who will speak 4 u 1
Britain threatens Spain with legal action on Gi... (Aug '13) Oct '13 Gay Servoslaves 30
Erdogan quiets Istanbul with softer tone, but c... (Jun '13) Oct '13 Tayyip Essek Oglu 19
•••

Tufts University People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••