Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

There are 20 comments on the Oct 5, 2012, The Capital-Journal story titled Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1 Oct 5, 2012
So, Scalia, as a "textualist" believes that anything that was legal, illegal or not understood cannot legally change over time?

Because he feels we should try to interpret the thought processes and beliefs of the founders and ensure that the current laws reflect them?

And he believes that as long as something has believed or done for a long time, that the laws enforcing that belief should remain ever intact?

Slavery should not be illegal.

Women should not vote.

Women should have no property rights, and be chattel to their husbands.

Young children should enter the workforce.

Women should, in all circumstances, be forced to carry a baby to term.

We can decide which minorities are entitled to equal protection under the law, based only on how we feel of them, with no state interest whatsoever.

The income taxes that pay his salary, pension, and medical expenses are illegal.

Is the man out of his freaking mind? he must be livid that a black man is president, since he believes that slavery is a hallowed and necessary institution, as the founding fathers did.

Since: Oct 12

Ludhiana, India

#2 Oct 5, 2012
Ya it nice post..
Speedieg

Atlanta, GA

#3 Oct 5, 2012
Wow what a turd this guy is, people used to be burned as witches to, should we still do that, there were slaves when the constitution and blacks were considered to be inferior to whites. As science advances we learn that we are wrong about many things. Scalia would have us stuck in the dark ages. What a waste he is. How did such a narrow minded douche rise to the Supreme Court?

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#4 Oct 5, 2012
To cut to the chase, Since he has pre-judged these cases he should recuse himself. Since he thinks he is always right though, I'll not hold my breath.
Professor Bubblegum Shoe

Alpharetta, GA

#5 Oct 5, 2012
When a person charged with complex tasks burns out; their reaction is to simplify to a level of irrelevance
.
Scalia should retire so Obama can appoint a more radically progressive justice

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#6 Oct 5, 2012
It's shocking how ignorant someone with his education and experience can be. It just goes to show how crippling it can be to choose to remain ignorant in the face of reality.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#7 Oct 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
So, Scalia, as a "textualist" believes that anything that was legal, illegal or not understood cannot legally change over time?
Because he feels we should try to interpret the thought processes and beliefs of the founders and ensure that the current laws reflect them?
And he believes that as long as something has believed or done for a long time, that the laws enforcing that belief should remain ever intact?
Slavery should not be illegal.
Women should not vote.
Women should have no property rights, and be chattel to their husbands.
Young children should enter the workforce.
Women should, in all circumstances, be forced to carry a baby to term.
We can decide which minorities are entitled to equal protection under the law, based only on how we feel of them, with no state interest whatsoever.
The income taxes that pay his salary, pension, and medical expenses are illegal.
Is the man out of his freaking mind? he must be livid that a black man is president, since he believes that slavery is a hallowed and necessary institution, as the founding fathers did.
nope.

1. He is saying the document provides a way to change it...and we should follow that and not let 9 PEOPLE change it rather than the NATION...
you know, since this is not a dictatorship...

2. He is talking about judicial activism, and the real kind, and not the "I don't agree with the outcome" kind...

As you rightly point out, we AMENDED to bar slavery...

3. LEGISLATION is not what he talks about at all, he is talking about rights NEVER CONCEIVED OF by the founders...
(ya know, like gays can marry and corps are people?)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8 Oct 5, 2012
eJohn wrote:
It's shocking how ignorant someone with his education and experience can be. It just goes to show how crippling it can be to choose to remain ignorant in the face of reality.
I honestly cannot believe some punk on a board would suggest a long standing JUSTICE was ignorant...
you make me want to puke.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#9 Oct 5, 2012
Professor Bubblegum Shoe wrote:
When a person charged with complex tasks burns out; their reaction is to simplify to a level of irrelevance
.
Scalia should retire so Obama can appoint a more radically progressive justice
way to miss the entire point...

you are advocating for judicial activism....

and you will also cry about the R appointees...

I need to get off this thread, the level of ignorance is just too much...

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#10 Oct 5, 2012
Speedieg wrote:
Wow what a turd this guy is, people used to be burned as witches to, should we still do that, there were slaves when the constitution and blacks were considered to be inferior to whites. As science advances we learn that we are wrong about many things. Scalia would have us stuck in the dark ages. What a waste he is. How did such a narrow minded douche rise to the Supreme Court?
Simple, Ronald Ray-gun.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#11 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
way to miss the entire point...
you are advocating for judicial activism....
and you will also cry about the R appointees...
I need to get off this thread, the level of ignorance is just too much...
Anyone using the term "judicial activism" to characterize decisions they don't like doesn't understand the first thing about our government or how it works. Go back to 8th grade Civics class and learn something before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#12 Oct 5, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone using the term "judicial activism" to characterize decisions they don't like doesn't understand the first thing about our government or how it works. Go back to 8th grade Civics class and learn something before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
psst, John, in essence that's what I just said to you...

judicial activism is thinking a judge can create rights...
go back to what you wrote and commented on scalia, he is speaking against JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, and you are saying he is ignorant...

you ARE what you claim to HATE!

We amend the constitution, we do not let judges LEGISLATE from the bench which is what judicial activism IS!

So, the fool here is you.
(Know how I know, you think you know and SCALIA doesnt!)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#13 Oct 5, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Simple, Ronald Ray-gun.
Right, so we will wait for OBama to stack the court and whine about the R's stacking the court...

if the court didn't legislate from the bench, it wouldn't matter...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#14 Oct 5, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone using the term "judicial activism" to characterize decisions they don't like doesn't understand the first thing about our government or how it works. Go back to 8th grade Civics class and learn something before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
so you missed that i had already said scalia was "talking about judicial activism, and the real kind, and not the "I don't agree with the outcome" kind..."

yup.
and you called HIM ignorant....
once you hit that point, you must at least guess you are being delusional, DO YOU?

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#15 Oct 5, 2012
It is hard to tell if Scalia gets his orders from the Pope or the Koran.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#16 Oct 5, 2012
jcofe wrote:
To cut to the chase, Since he has pre-judged these cases he should recuse himself. Since he thinks he is always right though, I'll not hold my breath.
I agree.......and I believe that any lawyer who is going to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court on ANY issue that Justice Scalia has already made a predetermination on because of his thought process, should request that he recuse himself......that would be the right thing to do seeing as he can not be impartial from the get go!!!!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#17 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope.
1. He is saying the document provides a way to change it...and we should follow that and not let 9 PEOPLE change it rather than the NATION...
you know, since this is not a dictatorship...
....
The majority does not get to vote away a basic civil and human rights from a minority, for no other reason than animus.

That is, INDEED, unconstitutional.

And the current amendments already cover this well.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you missed that i had already said scalia was "talking about judicial activism, and the real kind, and not the "I don't agree with the outcome" kind..."
yup.
and you called HIM ignorant....
once you hit that point, you must at least guess you are being delusional, DO YOU?
Let's see.

He's against gay folks engaging in what he calls "homosexual sodomy" and explains it as a reason for allowing anti-marriage laws.

But, oddly, he doesn't say a thing about straight folks who might have oral or anal sex being denied a marriage license.

And you call that rational?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#19 Oct 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority does not get to vote away a basic civil and human rights from a minority, for no other reason than animus.
That is, INDEED, unconstitutional.
And the current amendments already cover this well.
your right, thankfully this "all opposition is bigotry" is not flying...
Moms and dads, that aint bigotry, its reality...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#20 Oct 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see.
He's against gay folks engaging in what he calls "homosexual sodomy" and explains it as a reason for allowing anti-marriage laws.
But, oddly, he doesn't say a thing about straight folks who might have oral or anal sex being denied a marriage license.
And you call that rational?
nope, I call your belief that 9 people can change a fundamental document how they see fit irresponsible...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 19
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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Latest on GOP's 2016 hopefuls: Cruz on gay ... 7 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 32
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Wondering 19,693
NE Jade - Neat Gay or Scumbag? 8 min Pierre 3
Is NE Jade a POS? 8 min Pierre 2
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 9 min woodtick57 122
NE Jade - low life or What? 9 min Pierre 2
News Q&A: What's at stake in Supreme Court gay marri... 14 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 41 min Fa-Foxy 56
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr GayleWood 2,058
Are the mods fair and balanced? 10 hr Rick in Kansas 652
More from around the web