Scalia says abortion, gay rights are ...

Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

There are 375 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 5, 2012, 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.

Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#21 Oct 5, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!!
you guys are completely unhinged from reality...
is the sky blue where you live?

do you think any of this will actually happen?
nope.
I know why...
because you guys are completely unhinged from reality!
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#22 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I need to get off this thread, the level of ignorance is just too much...
Yeah.... like THAT will happen.
hoodathunkit

Mount Gilead, OH

#23 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...
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?)
Corps are people? So you believe that the judges who decided that corporations are people are "activist judges"? Scalia was one of the judges who decided that corporations are people an dwrote a concurring opinion about why corporations are people.
hoodathunkit

Mount Gilead, OH

#24 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, I call your belief that 9 people can change a fundamental document how they see fit irresponsible...
The Supreme Court has not changed the Constitution in any way. They rule on whether a law stands up to what is in the constitution. The constitution does not explicitly list issues but, every issue falls under one or more sections of the constitution. There is not a single word in the constitution regarding marriage. Do you think that the justices were irresponsible for ruling that marriage is a fundemental right for every American? Many states had laws against inter-racial marriage. Do you think that the justices were legislating from the bench when they struck down those laws and made inter-racial marriage legal?
miller

Minneapolis, MN

#25 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.
Why should individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, live a homosexual/queer lifestyle, or just claim to for certain advantages and benefits be accorded official recognition and preferential treatment from government?
People who engage in homosexual behavior-lifestyle/claim-to aren't analogous to a racial legal/constitutional context; homosexuals are found in all races. Homosexuality or the claim of it is merely a behavioral manifestation/belief-system afflicting a small sub-culture.
In most places, the voters don't think homosexual 'relationships' are of much import, let alone benefit to society.
Consequently, homosexual lifestyle hasn't been accorded any legal recognition, so there are no "rights" being "removed".
There is no actual legal discrimination against people who have decided to wrap up their identity in their homosexuality; on the contrary, people who claim to be homosexual already enjoy significant preferential treatment from government and it's unlimited power to coerce and punish anyone who also won't extend preferential treatment to homosexuals.
miller

Minneapolis, MN

#26 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
^THIS^
Equal Justice

San Francisco, CA

#27 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly cannot believe some punk on a board would suggest a long standing JUSTICE was ignorant...
you make me want to puke.
He was speaking the truth. The just because he is a long standing Justice does not mean that he is not prejudice.
miller

Minneapolis, MN

#28 Oct 5, 2012
hoodathunkit wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court has not changed the Constitution in any way. They rule on whether a law stands up to what is in the constitution. The constitution does not explicitly list issues but, every issue falls under one or more sections of the constitution. There is not a single word in the constitution regarding marriage. Do you think that the justices were irresponsible for ruling that marriage is a fundemental right for every American? Many states had laws against inter-racial marriage. Do you think that the justices were legislating from the bench when they struck down those laws and made inter-racial marriage legal?
Homosexuality, or the claim of it, isn't analogous to being born black, Japanese, Indian, what have you.
The government singled out for disparate and negative treatment these races and ethnicities, which all undoubtedly included a small number of homosexuals. The government didn't and shouldn't concern itself with the trivial, such as whiners whining about being some sort of queer.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#29 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you guys are completely unhinged from reality...
is the sky blue where you live?
do you think any of this will actually happen?
nope.
I know why...
because you guys are completely unhinged from reality!
This is a public forum and we are allowed to post our opinions, just like you.....don't like them, scroll by them!!!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#30 Oct 5, 2012
miller wrote:
<quoted text>Homosexuality, or the claim of it, isn't analogous to being born black, Japanese, Indian, what have you.
The government singled out for disparate and negative treatment these races and ethnicities, which all undoubtedly included a small number of homosexuals. The government didn't and shouldn't concern itself with the trivial, such as whiners whining about being some sort of queer.
Whatever, DORIS, how many false names are you going to post under today, liar? Faker. You are the new DAVID MOORE, aren't you? anything you say is suspect to lies for you lie and change your name so often, you cowardly unregistered liar.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#31 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you guys are completely unhinged from reality...
is the sky blue where you live?
do you think any of this will actually happen?
nope.
I know why...
because you guys are completely unhinged from reality!
Really? You can't even decide what sex to choose in your false names, and you think others are unhinged.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#32 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly cannot believe some punk on a board would suggest a long standing JUSTICE was ignorant...
you make me want to puke.
Then there is Clarence Thomas, who makes Scalia seem progressive. Please, not over the kitchen sink.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#33 Oct 5, 2012
WDRussell wrote:
It is hard to tell if Scalia gets his orders from the Pope or the Koran.
Scalia takes pre-planned automatic positions, which is far simpler than thoughtful examination. In his case, it's understandable.
Va te faire le enculer

AOL

#34 Oct 5, 2012
miller wrote:
<quoted text>Homosexuality, or the claim of it, isn't analogous to being born black, Japanese, Indian, what have you.
The government singled out for disparate and negative treatment these races and ethnicities, which all undoubtedly included a small number of homosexuals. The government didn't and shouldn't concern itself with the trivial, such as whiners whining about being some sort of queer.
I agree! Disparate sexual behavior does not equate to race, ethnicity or culture driven nationality.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#35 Oct 5, 2012
miller wrote:
<quoted text>Why should individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, live a homosexual/queer lifestyle, or just claim to for certain advantages and benefits be accorded official recognition and preferential treatment from government?
And what advantages and benefits would those be?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#36 Oct 5, 2012
miller wrote:
Consequently, homosexual lifestyle hasn't been accorded any legal recognition, so there are no "rights" being "removed".
There is no actual legal discrimination against people who have decided to wrap up their identity in their homosexuality; on the contrary, people who claim to be homosexual already enjoy significant preferential treatment from government and it's unlimited power to coerce and punish anyone who also won't extend preferential treatment to homosexuals.
Well which is it? No rights being removed, or preferential treatment?

Does sound like you thought this through, bucko.
david traversa

Argentina

#37 Oct 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly cannot believe some punk on a board would suggest a long standing JUSTICE was ignorant...
you make me want to puke.
Your limitation is called naïveté..
david traversa

Argentina

#38 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...
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?)
Neither did the founders MIS-CONCEIVE.. When the "nation" is educated enough to make important decisions we can start talking.. As of now Old Testamental education and gut feeling is simply not enough.. Even a President should not be elected by vote; but by a group versed in real politics and not bought sympathy and mob hysteria.
david traversa

Argentina

#39 Oct 5, 2012
Scalia is just another "Christian" bigot in sheep's clothing..

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#44 Oct 6, 2012
LlE Buster wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, bigot racist hater. You are just a freaking gay who hates blacks.
What Scalia said was that the 13th and 14th Amendment had to be added to the constitution to give blacks rights not already there. He then said that you bigot gay racist who hate blacks need to do the same and ratify the constitution with 38 states agreeing to change the constitution. That is why you freaks want special rights, you want rights that were not even given to blacks.
Too bad, I LOVE blacks, umm, black men. Nothing finer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 An East Tennessee store owner put up a 'No Gays... 3 min lides 124
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? 3 min woodtick57 30
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 3 min Reverend Alan 5,831
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 3 min NorCal Native 534
News Huckabee: 'Redefinition of love' threatens marr... 5 min Responsibility 13
News Clerk to quit, cites 'moral conviction' 6 min Here Is One 97
News Gay rights activists mark landmark 1965 demonst... 9 min SirAndrew 1
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 9 min Happy Lesbo 330
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 13 min P be Me 7,053
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 18 min NorCal Native 721
News Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballo... 25 min Fa-Foxy 25
More from around the web