• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scalia: 'High-Handed' Kennedy 'Demeans This Institution'.....

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

"Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent".....snip~

Scalia: 'High-Handed' Kennedy 'Demeans This Institution'

Scalia is correct the Matter should have been left to the States. They now have codified an aspect of marriage by imposing change rather than society electing that change.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Emotions run high in 5 to 4 decisions which not only split the Court but divide the nation as well. This is why the Court worked so hard in the past to come up with unanimous decisions in landmark cases like Brown v. Board or Gideon v. Wainwright.

Emotions ran high in Bush v. Gore and in the Citizens United decision as well. This is to be expected with a badly divided Court which has strong personalities on it.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Scalia is an ass, funny read though.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
11,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
....to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements
Yeah, it is. DOMA turns homosexuals into second-class citizens.

Scalia doesn't care about that, because he obviously hates homosexuality and believes it is immoral. It is unclear, though, whether he would support a federal law that bars adulterers from getting remarried. ;)


It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Actually, society is changing. It's very likely we will see more states legitimize gay marriage.


And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
No, it won't.

The SCOTUS ruling did not bar states from setting their own laws, and so far it appears that states will not be required to honor a same-sex marriage in another state. United States v. Windsor deals with the federal laws, not state laws. The court refused to hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, which means that the decision on the matter was actually made by a state court, and thus that law was shot down by the state constitution. Technically speaking, that case actually didn't have anything to do with same-sex marriage -- it's a question of who has standing to defend a ballot initiative in the courts.


"Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better."
Right. The guy who openly regards homosexuality as immoral is now giving political advice to the proponents of same-sex marriage. Yes, a SCOTUS dissent is an excellent platform for a concern troll... :mrgreen:
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,116
Reaction score
32,799
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

"Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent".....snip~

Scalia: 'High-Handed' Kennedy 'Demeans This Institution'

Scalia is correct the Matter should have been left to the States. They now have codified an aspect of marriage by imposing change rather than society electing that change.
read his comments, only now read them in context of defense of slavery
and voila, his comments still fit
the bastard is a relic from another era, and is not fit to remain a member of the nation's highest court
he should have been impeached long ago
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,323
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Hmm, Scalia? Like anyone else I don't know personally, when he supports something I support, like Gun Rights, I agree with him. If he opposes something I support, like this, I disagree with him.

I neither hate, nor love him. I save those emotions for people I care about who have hurt or helped me.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Scalia sees the courts taking more and more power through judicial activism and does not like it, I agree.
Heya SL :2wave: Yeah.....I don't think many see that angle you are looking at. Which I would think it would be a major concern about Judicial Activism for all. Not just over one issue here and there. Even more the major concern with such use thru the SCOTUS and these people with Life-term appointments.

Which is why we need to stop such. No more free rides, term limits and then hit that pasture! ;)
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It should be left to the states, where have I heard that line before?

Oh yeah, Jim crow.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
11,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think many see that angle you are looking at. Which I would think it would be a major concern about Judicial Activism for all.
Yeah, except that "judicial activism" is just another way to say "I disagree with that decision."


Even more the major concern with such use thru the SCOTUS and these people with Life-term appointments.
Yes, that was done intentionally, by the framers, to insulate the courts from some of the short-term political concerns, and to allow them a little more latitude to reject a majority decision when it violates the Constitution.

More importantly, term limits would not change the idea that the courts can overturn a federal law, based on the claim that it violates a clause of the Constitution.

And keep in mind that if there were term limits, it would be possible that you'd currently have a court whose composition was decided mostly by Clinton and Obama. I'm sure you'd love that. :mrgreen:
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,630
Reaction score
33,013
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scalia is an ass, funny read though.
He's angry, sure. He's also right. The idea that you can declare your opposition not simply incorrect but illegitimate is antithetical to our traditions of self government and the idea that you can simply declare the ability to read the minds and hearts of hundreds of people from years ago is ludicrous. Kennedy wrote an appallingly argued decision built on that ad hominem.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Yeah, except that "judicial activism" is just another way to say "I disagree with that decision."

Yes, that was done intentionally, by the framers, to insulate the courts from some of the short-term political concerns, and to allow them a little more latitude to reject a majority decision when it violates the Constitution.

More importantly, term limits would not change the idea that the courts can overturn a federal law, based on the claim that it violates a clause of the Constitution.

And keep in mind that if there were term limits, it would be possible that you'd currently have a court whose composition was decided mostly by Clinton and Obama. I'm sure you'd love that. :mrgreen:
Not at the same time that he is saying that the Debate resides with the States.

Then again there is the possibility that all still would have worked out the same way as it did and has. With regard to limiting the time Judges can serve.

Course the Term Limits aren't there over the issues as to the Court's Decisions. That's a different matter. Now.....what would you think the real issues would be to have in effect no lifetime appointments?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
11,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not at the same time that he is saying that the Debate resides with the States.
Again, the ruling does not change any state laws on gay marriage. Again, one ruling shot down DOMA (a federal law). The other ruling was really about standing when a state refuses to defend a law in court... and Scalia agreed with the majority on that one.

In some ways, these rulings are actually quite respectful of state powers, e.g. Federalism and the authority of the states to define marriage : SCOTUSblog

And no, I don't take him seriously when he suggests that proponents of same-sex marriage are harmed by this ruling. His distaste (if not outright hatred) for same-sex marriage dings his credibility on that score.


Then again there is the possibility that all still would have worked out the same way as it did and has. With regard to limiting the time Judges can serve.
Well, one thing would be different: Scalia would be off the Court by now. He was appointed in 1986 and is the longest-serving justice on the court.


what would you think the real issues would be to have in effect no lifetime appointments?
I'm not opposed to terms. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a solution for so-called "judicial activism."
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Scalia looks and acts like a drunk Lou Costello, only without the charm. He's a bully and you don't have to be Dr. Freud to see that his strident homophobia raises latency issues. Amazing this freak got on the Supreme Court
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
61,256
Reaction score
29,115
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Scalia is an ass, funny read though.
Exactly. **** that ****ing ****. He's admitted he doesn't rule by precedence because he's a "textualist" which basically means he makes his decisions based on his own personal feelings on a topic. Or in more laymen terms, Scalia is the king of judicial activism and would rather use his position to write laws rather than rule on them.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
61,256
Reaction score
29,115
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It should be left to the states, where have I heard that line before?

Oh yeah, Jim crow.
As I've recently heard someone else say, "These days Jim Crow is now actually James Crow Esq."
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Nonsense - congrats on turning what could have been an interesting thread discussion into a typical name calling bitch session.
Scalia is an ass. :shrug:
 
Top Bottom