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

[CanadaJohn]

It's pretty clearly truthful.

Let me put it this way - I'm sure Scalia would feel the same about anyone who doesn't know him at all yet is quick to personally attack him for doing his job. That's pretty much the gist of the comments outlined in the OP.

 

[Your Star]

Let me put it this way - I'm sure Scalia would feel the same about anyone who doesn't know him at all yet is quick to personally attack him for doing his job. That's pretty much the gist of the comments outlined in the OP.

He wants to deny me equally rights, pretty clearly a thing an asshole would do.

 

[chromium]

Douches like Scalia are why I have no intention of going to law school. He is a complete disgrace and no, "Too bad." is not a legally sound argument. His hatred oozes thru his opinion so clearly that I'm just not going to give any credence to arguments that he actually gives a crap about the constitution, compared to bashing the homos. That's all his and his ilk have ever been about. It's also clear that the sore loser victim syndrome is well represented on this forum, even as 37 states still ban SSM. But don't worry, the time will come when you really cry, as gay couples marry even in your Louisiana swamps.

 

[MMC]

Douches like Scalia are why I have no intention of going to law school. He is a complete disgrace and no, "Too bad." is not a legally sound argument. His hatred oozes thru his opinion so clearly that I'm just not going to give any credence to arguments that he actually gives a crap about the constitution, compared to bashing the homos. That's all his and his ilk have ever been about. It's also clear that the sore loser victim syndrome is well represented on this forum, even as 37 states still ban SSM. But don't worry, the time will come when you really cry, as gay couples marry even in your Louisiana swamps.

SO what do you have to say about Kagan and Ginsburg? Who cannot even compare with their Combined knowledge with Scalia.

What do you got to say about Ginsburg taking a Dump on the US constitution while telling those in Egypt that they should look to the South African Model?

 

[Redress]

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.

So, in MMC's world a ruling which overturned the federal government defining marriage in favor of states being able to define marriage is wrong because it should be left to the states. Apparently up is down and left is right in his world too.

 

[PeteEU]

Scalia is an ass, funny read though.

And utterly corrupt. He and his wife are bottom feeders of the worst kind. He should have been kicked off the court (never should have been appointed) long ago. He in no way represents anyone but the lowest of the low on the US political right. He lives in the dark ages.

 

[MMC]

So, in MMC's world a ruling which overturned the federal government defining marriage in favor of states being able to define marriage is wrong because it should be left to the states. Apparently up is down and left is right in his world too.

Still trying to think for another and showing that limitation as well as that Never ending Weakness. Did you have a problem with that I think that the issue belongs to the States? I was clear about it. Did you have some sort of confusion with your thought process over it?

Did ya want to take another at bat.....where you have whiffed completely and repeatedly? :lol:

 

[Redress]

Still trying to think for another and showing that limitation as well as that Never ending Weakness. Did you have a problem with that I think that the issue belongs to the States? I was clear about it. Did you have some sort of confusion with your thought process over it?

Did ya want to take another at bat.....where you have whiffed completely and repeatedly? :lol:

Well, the confusion seems to be with you and your understanding of what happened here. See, when DOMA passed, part of what it did was define at a federal level what marriage is. What this ruling did was overturn that part of DOMA based on it being up to the states. So you are celebrating a dissent from a ruling in favor of states rights. Well done!

 

[Helix]

Scalia's just on the wrong side of history. In a couple decades, there won't even be one judge on the court who would overturn the right of gays to marry. It will be like the current court's support of interracial marriage; the most reliable conservative on the court is in an interracial marriage himself.

 

[CriticalThought]

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.

Bull. It has been left to the states. The court did not rule same sex marriage is a right. Arguing they will when they could have and did not is disingenuous at best.

 

[CriticalThought]

Still trying to think for another and showing that limitation as well as that Never ending Weakness. Did you have a problem with that I think that the issue belongs to the States? I was clear about it. Did you have some sort of confusion with your thought process over it?

Did ya want to take another at bat.....where you have whiffed completely and repeatedly? :lol:

The issue does belong to the states. How did this ruling take it from the states? Scalia is arguing about a possible future ruling that has not been made.

 

[Visbek]

MMC, you really need to read the rulings. Or at least, Scalia's actual dissent.

Again: 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.

Scalia's dissent barely discusses state powers -- he basically just outlines a few sources of confusion for situations where a state does not acknowledge same-sex marriage, and the federal government does. Most of his tirade is against the idea of judicial review and going against the decisions of Congress (despite his own willingness to throw out laws he finds unconstitutional), and his claim that DOMA singling out same-sex marriages for second-class treatment somehow isn't "harmful." And really, a great deal of it is based on his belief that homosexuality is immoral, and how that is a valid basis for legislation.

To me, it looks far more like a temper tantrum than a detailed complaint based in jurisprudence. I expect history will not look kindly on his dissents on this issue.

Plus, Scalia voted with the majority on Hollingsworth v. Perry, which had the result of upholding the California ruling against same-sex marriage.

 

[MMC]

Well, the confusion seems to be with you and your understanding of what happened here. See, when DOMA passed, part of what it did was define at a federal level what marriage is. What this ruling did was overturn that part of DOMA based on it being up to the states. So you are celebrating a dissent from a ruling in favor of states rights. Well done!

Try again.....look more at the Issue of getting up what Scalia was saying. Like I stated I was clearly for the States in making their own decisions. This made up thought of yours about me celebrating is more of that confusion you like to put into the game. :roll:

Also clearly I stated that Judicial Activism should be a concern by all. Looks like you forgot that part while you try and Cherry pick what you like to make up. Was there some Obvious reason you forgot to throw in what else I stated? Or is that due to one of those limitations we discussed about before?"

Did you want to try and tell me what I was celebrating and what I was doing partying at the time When Scalia opened his mouth? Lets see if your liberal mindset can even come close.

 

[MMC]

MMC, you really need to read the rulings. Or at least, Scalia's actual dissent.

Again: 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.

Scalia's dissent barely discusses state powers -- he basically just outlines a few sources of confusion for situations where a state does not acknowledge same-sex marriage, and the federal government does. Most of his tirade is against the idea of judicial review and going against the decisions of Congress (despite his own willingness to throw out laws he finds unconstitutional), and his claim that DOMA singling out same-sex marriages for second-class treatment somehow isn't "harmful." And really, a great deal of it is based on his belief that homosexuality is immoral, and how that is a valid basis for legislation.

To me, it looks far more like a temper tantrum than a detailed complaint based in jurisprudence. I expect history will not look kindly on his dissents on this issue.

Plus, Scalia voted with the majority on Hollingsworth v. Perry, which had the result of upholding the California ruling against same-sex marriage.

Did you read what he stated here? Are you telling me that you don't think he is correct when he says the Court cheated both sides? Was there anything wrong with what he is stating here?

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.....snip~

Care to show me what he is saying that is false?

 

[Gaius46]

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.

Whatever you may feel about Scalia, textualism has nothing to do with ruling based on ones's personal feelings. In fact it means the complete opposite.

Whether Scalia is true textualism is another matter.

 

[MMC]

The issue does belong to the states. How did this ruling take it from the states? Scalia is arguing about a possible future ruling that has not been made.

I never stated Scalia was going against the states. It was being explain to another member something that he always takes out of context. Then tries to push that BS off on others. From the get go I stood with where I was at with it.

Moreover how is Scalia wrong to state that when the Majority sees the other sides as Enemies of the Human race, then by talking about how they are affronted and what it leads to.

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.....snip~

 

[radcen]

Scalia sees the courts taking more and more power through judicial activism and does not like it, I agree.

Most people who say that only mean it when the ruling goes against them.

General comment, not directed at you specifically.

I'd bet that when Scalia gets his way, it's the court affirming whatever is right.

 

[Visbek]

Did you read what he stated here?

I've read the whole dissent. Have you?

He does say the SCOTUS has "gone too far." However, anyone who says the ruling has usurped all public debate on the matter, or taken it out of the hands of the states, is completely incorrect. It hasn't. For more times than I can count: The decision does NOT prevent the states from passing laws against same-sex marriage.

Are you telling me that you don't think he is correct when he says the Court cheated both sides?

That is exactly what I am saying.

As I said earlier: He's acting like a "concern troll," professing to warn the advocates of same-sex marriage about the dangers of what is a clear victory. Everyone still needs to duke it out on the state level.

Care to show me what he is saying that is false?

'kay

"It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here...."

That isn't what the ruling has done.

It has not declared state laws against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. It's only done that on the federal level.

"The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with...."

Scalia has been just as willing to put the Big Kibosh on laws he classifies as "unconstitutional" as the Court did this week with DOMA. In fact, it's not really all that much different than modifying the Voting Rights Act -- as Scalia voted earlier this week.

Again, this is in the junkyard of "if you do it, it's judicial activism; if I do it, it's jurisprudence." e.g. Justice Scalia Hates Judicial Review, Except When He Doesn't - Dashiell Bennett - The Atlantic Wire

 

[Jack Fabulous]

So, in MMC's world a ruling which overturned the federal government defining marriage in favor of states being able to define marriage is wrong because it should be left to the states. Apparently up is down and left is right in his world too.

THIS!!!

The court actually struck a blow on behalf of states rights with this decision. People that like to toot the states rights horn need to be a little careful when those "rights" are exercised in ways that they don't approve. You're either for states rights or you are not. It can't be issue specific.

 

[MMC]

I've read the whole dissent. Have you?

He does say the SCOTUS has "gone too far." However, anyone who says the ruling has usurped all public debate on the matter, or taken it out of the hands of the states, is completely incorrect. It hasn't. For more times than I can count: The decision does NOT prevent the states from passing laws against same-sex marriage.



That is exactly what I am saying.

As I said earlier: He's acting like a "concern troll," professing to warn the advocates of same-sex marriage about the dangers of what is a clear victory. Everyone still needs to duke it out on the state level.



'kay



That isn't what the ruling has done.

It has not declared state laws against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. It's only done that on the federal level.



Scalia has been just as willing to put the Big Kibosh on laws he classifies as "unconstitutional" as the Court did this week with DOMA. In fact, it's not really all that much different than modifying the Voting Rights Act -- as Scalia voted earlier this week.

Again, this is in the junkyard of "if you do it, it's judicial activism; if I do it, it's jurisprudence." e.g. Justice Scalia Hates Judicial Review, Except When He Doesn't - Dashiell Bennett - The Atlantic Wire

From Michael Barone.....

Supreme Court Offers Mixed Verdict to Conservatives and Liberals.....

There were victories and setbacks here for political and cultural conservatives and for political and cultural liberals.

The common thread I see is that this is a court that has mostly tried to keep the three branches of the federal government and the states from interfering with each other.

This was arguably true in Fisher v. University of Texas, the case on racial preferences in college and university admissions. The decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had dissented from the 2003 decision allowing quotas.

But Kennedy declined to rule them out altogether, as Justice Clarence Thomas urged. Rather, Kennedy said courts should apply "strict scrutiny" to preferences that must be "narrowly tailored," as he argued in his 2003 dissent.

These decisions, which tend to restrain branches of government from interfering with each other, were the product of no single coalition. No justice voted with the majority in all four cases, but each voted with the majority in two or three. A thought-provoking session.....snip~

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages authorized by states, and allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It was overturned 5-4 in U.S. v. Windsor, written by Kennedy.

That means that same-sex couples can file joint federal tax returns and qualify for the spousal exemption in federal estate tax.

It may mean that same-sex couples can get divorces in states that don't allow them to marry. It may overturn any state law barring same-sex couples from adopting children. Other wrinkles are left to the states to sort out.

But the court was unwilling to impose same-sex marriage on states that don't want it. That was the practical effect of Perry v. Hollingsworth, which left in place a California federal trial court decision overturning California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.

The state declined to defend the law on appeal, and the chief justice wrote that the private parties who appealed lacked the standing to do so.

The practical effect is that California now has same-sex marriage. But polls indicate that California voters stood ready to reverse Proposition 8's narrow 52 to 48 percent margin if the issue again got on the ballot.....snip~

Supreme Court Offers Mixed Verdict to Conservatives and Liberals - Michael Barone - Page 2

 

[Gaius46]

THIS!!!

The court actually struck a blow on behalf of states rights with this decision. People that like to toot the states rights horn need to be a little careful when those "rights" are exercised in ways that they don't approve. You're either for states rights or you are not. It can't be issue specific.

I disagree. The court made a narrow ruling on the question before it, which in general is what the SC should do. It's only a matter of time before the appropriate cases come before the court which will allow it to rule that:

1. States not recognizing other state SS marriages violates the full faith and credit clause
and,

2. State laws outlawing SSM violate the equal protection clause.


I'm a states rights type, for the record, but states are not at liberty to violate the Constitution.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I disagree. The court made a narrow ruling on the question before it, which in general is what the SC should do. It's only a matter of time before the appropriate cases come before the court which will allow it to rule that:

1. States not recognizing other state SS marriages violates the full faith and credit clause
and,

2. State laws outlawing SSM violate the equal protection clause.


I'm a states rights type, for the record, but states are not at liberty to violate the Constitution.

#2 could get a little dicey. There are many states that don't have laws specifically "outlawing" same sex marriage and at the same time do not allow same sex couples to marry. By taking no action at all a state can effectively ban SSM. It would then become a question of whether or not the federal government has the right to impose SSM on the states. By doing so, they would have to do a 180 on the ruling that they just handed down.

At least, this is my understanding of how that scenario would unfold.

 

[Paschendale]

Douches like Scalia are why I have no intention of going to law school. He is a complete disgrace and no, "Too bad." is not a legally sound argument. His hatred oozes thru his opinion so clearly that I'm just not going to give any credence to arguments that he actually gives a crap about the constitution, compared to bashing the homos. That's all his and his ilk have ever been about. It's also clear that the sore loser victim syndrome is well represented on this forum, even as 37 states still ban SSM. But don't worry, the time will come when you really cry, as gay couples marry even in your Louisiana swamps.

Douches like Scalia are exactly why I went to law school. So I could stop their crap from legal enforcement.

Whatever you may feel about Scalia, textualism has nothing to do with ruling based on ones's personal feelings. In fact it means the complete opposite.

Whether Scalia is true textualism is another matter.

Regardless of -isms, Scalia rules on his personal feelings and nothing else. He is constantly inconsistent in his reasonings, picking and choosing whatever precedent, or ignoring precedent, or inconsistent arguments to reach his predetermined position. He basically just pushes the neo-con agenda. Nearly all of his decisions are attempts to enforce the party line of the neoconservative movement. The only state's right that Scalia ever really supports is the state's right to strip rights from people.

 

[Gaius46]

Douches like Scalia are exactly why I went to law school. So I could stop their crap from legal enforcement.



Regardless of -isms, Scalia rules on his personal feelings and nothing else. He is constantly inconsistent in his reasonings, picking and choosing whatever precedent, or ignoring precedent, or inconsistent arguments to reach his predetermined position. He basically just pushes the neo-con agenda. Nearly all of his decisions are attempts to enforce the party line of the neoconservative movement. The only state's right that Scalia ever really supports is the state's right to strip rights from people.

Yeah but you just gotta love his dissent in Maryland v King.

 

[MMC]

Douches like Scalia are exactly why I went to law school. So I could stop their crap from legal enforcement.



Regardless of -isms, Scalia rules on his personal feelings and nothing else. He is constantly inconsistent in his reasonings, picking and choosing whatever precedent, or ignoring precedent, or inconsistent arguments to reach his predetermined position. He basically just pushes the neo-con agenda. Nearly all of his decisions are attempts to enforce the party line of the neoconservative movement. The only state's right that Scalia ever really supports is the state's right to strip rights from people.

How does that make Kennedy any different.....as he has done the same. Moreover.....worse of them all, is Kagan. Any chance you can explain where she even deserves to Be a Judge on any Court Let alone the Supreme Court.

Okay I can see her on the Peoples Court for Comedy. :lol: