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

[Fiddytree]

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.

On this issue, however, he seemed to be against some of the big hitters of the so-called neoconservative movement that submitted support to the court in favor of gay marriage (Paul Wolfowitz among them), while he was being supported by others (Harvey Mansfield) that were against gay marriage.

 

[haymarket]

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

except when he is on the side of judicial activism.

 

[shrubnose]

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.

If Scalia is really unhappy he could resign and spend more time doing whatever floats his boat.

 

[MMC]

If Scalia is really unhappy he could resign and spend more time doing whatever floats his boat.

The same could be said of Kennedy. So because he writes his dissent just like Kennedy did and explain his thought upon the matter. You took it as him being real unhappy.

So again why was he wrong in stating that he felt both sides were cheated?

 

[windowdressing]

If Scalia is really unhappy he could resign and spend more time doing whatever floats his boat.

can't do that ... his favorite thing is to go hunting with people whose case he will be deciding on ...

 

[windowdressing]

except when he is on the side of judicial activism.

perhaps we should define judicial activism ---


2Judicial Activism
noun
plural More than one Judicial Activism


Definition of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM


1

: What a judge is doing when you don't agree with her/him.


2

: What conservative justices do if you are a liberal.

3

: What liberal judges do if you are a conservative.

 

[haymarket]

perhaps we should define judicial activism ---


2Judicial Activism
noun
plural More than one Judicial Activism


Definition of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM


1

: What a judge is doing when you don't agree with her/him.


2

: What conservative justices do if you are a liberal.

3

: What liberal judges do if you are a conservative.

I think you are onto something there.

 

[poweRob]

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.

Textualism as Scalia sees it is ruling on what he believes is the intent of the original text of the constitution. Which basically is him ruling by his own decisions and not based on any history based in precedence.

 

[windowdressing]

I think you are onto something there.

I'm going to submit it to Merriam Dictionary Online to see if they take it ... I used their format

 

[head of joaquin]

Textualism as Scalia sees it is ruling on what he believes is the intent of the original text of the constitution. Which basically is him ruling by his own decisions and not based on any history based in precedence.

Well, he does seem to claim that he can channel the minds of all the dead persons who ratified the Constitution, and that they all understand the text the exact same way. But that's even weirder than having no history.

 

[head of joaquin]

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.

It's a good point. Scalia had close (duckhunting) relations with Cheney and other freaks from the Bush administration, all while ruling on cases that affected them. It was totally inappropriate and he should have been impeached. But Democrats just play too nice.

Scalia-Cheney Trip Raises Eyebrows - CBS News

 

[MMC]

It's a good point. Scalia had close (duckhunting) relations with Cheney and other freaks from the Bush administration, all while ruling on cases that affected them. It was totally inappropriate and he should have been impeached. But Democrats just play too nice.

Scalia-Cheney Trip Raises Eyebrows - CBS News

So what was Bilbos excuse and those Laxed Democratic Ethics? U know.....the ones the Demos always throw out the windows for their corrupt money stealing schemes :lol:

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.....snip~

 

[Dezaad]

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.

The FEDERAL benefits which DOMA deprived SSM folks of ... that is what should have been left to the states? Wellllll, IT WAS!!!!! The majority opinion made it so that the individual states could decide what federal benefits will be given to same sex couples, because the individual states still decide whether SSM is legal. Name a specific power that was taken away from individual state governments with this SCOTUS decision. I expect the sound of crickets from you, cuz there just aren't any.

This decision RESTORED power to the states, taking it AWAY from the Federal gov't. So you should be thrilled, since you are so gung ho about states rights, right???

 

[MMC]

The FEDERAL benefits which DOMA deprived SSM folks of ... that is what should have been left to the states? Wellllll, IT WAS!!!!! The majority opinion made it so that the individual states could decide what federal benefits will be given to same sex couples, because the individual states still decide whether SSM is legal. Name a specific power that was taken away from individual state governments with this SCOTUS decision. I expect the sound of crickets from you, cuz there just aren't any.

This decision RESTORED power to the states, taking it AWAY from the Federal gov't. So you should be thrilled, since you are so gung ho about states rights, right???

Did ya read All of the thread as I am not going to explain it all out again. Now where was Scalia wrong in saying he felt both sides were cheated? What was your excuse?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

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.

I agree with Scalia on this.


U


.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has co-written a book on legal interpretation with Bryan Garner, a liberal who is an expert on legal language. Although liberal, Garner is equally as concerned about the judicial interpretation of laws that seeks to look outside of the text, instead of looking to the text itself to determine the meaning (“textualism”). Beginning primarily in the 21st century, this phenomenon has led to judges putting their own biases and desired outcomes into their decisions.


Scalia Repudiates Judicial Activism - Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

 

[sawyerloggingon]

except when he is on the side of judicial activism.

Have some examples?

 

[haymarket]

Have some examples?

Sure, Citizens United for one which upset the last century of law and precedent on that topic of campaign financing. Its no secret which side Scalia was on in that ruling which threw precedent and law out the window.

One could say that the Heller ruling which created a new right independent of the militia was judicial activism in yet another 5-4 ruling where the conservatives changed the status quo to suit their own ideology.

 

[justabubba]

Sure, Citizens United for one which upset the last century of law and precedent on that topic of campaign financing. Its no secret which side Scalia was on in that ruling which threw precedent and law out the window.

One could say that the Heller ruling which created a new right independent of the militia was judicial activism in yet another 5-4 ruling where the conservatives changed the status quo to suit their own ideology.

heller absolutely departed from precedent

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Sure, Citizens United for one which upset the last century of law and precedent on that topic of campaign financing. Its no secret which side Scalia was on in that ruling which threw precedent and law out the window.

One could say that the Heller ruling which created a new right independent of the militia was judicial activism in yet another 5-4 ruling where the conservatives changed the status quo to suit their own ideology.

Neither one of those decisions created a new law, they interrupted an existing one which is the role of the court.

 

[haymarket]

Neither one of those decisions created a new law, they interrupted an existing one which is the role of the court.

Heller changed the longstanding view of the SecondAmendment. As such, it is judicial activism which would be condemned by the right if the shoe was on the other foot.

Citizens United threw out decades of election law and previous precedent. As such, it is judicial activism which would be condemned by the right if the shoe was on the other foot.

Both sides do it. Both sides are guilty. There are no virgins working in the whorehouse with ten year good service tattoos on their backside.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d21f92-de98-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/03/conservative-judicial-activists-run-amok.html

http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...e-judicial-activism-of-the-roberts-court.html

 

[Linc]

Today's Chicago Tribune, a well-known Repub but normal newspaper, has 3 good cartoons in their gallery. One has a SCOTUS key unlocking the Jim Crow bird cage with the birdie gone. The 2nd has a confederate flag flying over the SCOTUS. The 3rd has Klansman marching to buy Paula Deen's latest cookbook.

It should be left to the states, where have I heard that line before?

Oh yeah, Jim crow.

 

[Visbek]

From Michael Barone

So basically, the answer to my question "have you read the ruling/dissent" is apparently "NO."

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

Federal taxes are a federal concern, not a state issue.

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.

May, might, maybe. The phrase you are somehow ignoring is "LEFT TO THE STATES."

But the court was unwilling to impose same-sex marriage on states that don't want it.

Another phrase you're ignoring.

Do you really not understand what these rulings have done? States still have the ability to block same-sex marriage. California does not, because that ban is classified as a violation of California's state constitution before it got to the SCOTUS. The real issue in that specific ruling, as noted before, actually has nothing to do with gay marriage; it's a question about standing.

 

[Visbek]

Have some examples?

Earlier in the week, Scalia voted with the majority to remove Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- despite this being passed overwhelmingly by Congress just a few years ago. Pretty obvious contrast in when he applies which concepts of law.

Scalia is consistent in his politics. This doesn't result in consistency in the application of his jurisprudence.

 

[MMC]

So basically, the answer to my question "have you read the ruling/dissent" is apparently "NO."



Federal taxes are a federal concern, not a state issue.



May, might, maybe. The phrase you are somehow ignoring is "LEFT TO THE STATES."



Another phrase you're ignoring.

Do you really not understand what these rulings have done? States still have the ability to block same-sex marriage. California does not, because that ban is classified as a violation of California's state constitution before it got to the SCOTUS. The real issue in that specific ruling, as noted before, actually has nothing to do with gay marriage; it's a question about standing.

Yeah I read Scalia's Dissent, just Like Barone did!.....now again where is he wrong in saying he felt both sides were cheated? What excuse is there for this statement?

Do you Understand what Barone is saying? Do you think Barone read Scalia's dissent? How long has Barone been covering Judicial Review?

Did you read that part about it may overturn any state law barring same sex couple from adopting children. That was a wrinkle that wasn't left to the states per se.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Earlier in the week, Scalia voted with the majority to remove Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- despite this being passed overwhelmingly by Congress just a few years ago. Pretty obvious contrast in when he applies which concepts of law.

Scalia is consistent in his politics. This doesn't result in consistency in the application of his jurisprudence.

Not creating new law but interrupting law or declaring a law unconstitutional. Huge difference.