Scathing Look at Scalia: Made US Less Fair, Less Tolerant

[TurtleDude]

I do not know the wickard case.

In 1942 the supremes heard a case about a farmer who was being sanctioned for growing wheat for his own personal use on his own property and the supremes-rejecting over 100 years of precedent (which held that the commerce clause did not give congress power over individual citizens acting within their own sovereign states)-found that congress had such power because this farmer could have "affected" interstate commerce by this action. Its one of the most panned decisions in history and set a precedent that basically allows congress to use the commerce clause to completely ignore the tent amendment and many parts of the bill of rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

Probably the most powerful case in modern US constitutional law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/317/111

It made interstate commerce be applicable to pretty much everything.

If you don't like the congress trying to bully colorado over legalized pot, blame Wickard. If i were lord high dictator, all of those clowns who issued that case would have been jailed for 400 years for high treason and for violating their oaths of office.

 

[cpwill]

I am curious what causes this level of juvenile attacks on a justice that even left wing legal scholars admit was one of the greatest legal minds in US History.

Scalia voted against the gays. It's the unforgivable sin for modern leftism, and heretics must be publicly shamed and punished.

 

[Absentglare]

Scalia voted against the gays. It's the unforgivable sin for modern leftism, and heretics must be publicly shamed and punished.

He also flip flopped in Gore v Bush to secure the election for the republican candidate.

He also elected to subvert the separation of church and state that's been a central tenet of this country for its entire >200 year existence in Burwell v Hobby Lobby. That was also a flip flop from the 90s when he claimed that theology cannot subvert the law of the land lest we abide anarchy.

 

[calamity]

Just the bolded, so he articulated that the gay agenda was to remove the stigma attached to homosexuality? Is he correct? Because it certainly seems that he is. Wider acceptance of LGBT norms seems to be a stated goal. So how is wrong when Scalia says it but right when an LGBT activist says it?

What's wrong is him ignoring the equal protection clause in the 14th in his dissent, which was basically him preaching his bigotry from the Bench. Gays have the right to equal protection. Scalia wanted to deny them that right.

He was an odd duck. He ruled on morality when it applied to gays but ignored morality when it came to sending innocent men to the death chamber. Selective originalism was Scalia's trademark.

 

[cpwill]

He also flip flopped in Gore v Bush to secure the election for the republican candidate.

He also elected to subvert the separation of church and state that's been a central tenet of this country for its entire >200 year existence in Burwell v Hobby Lobby. That was also a flip flop from the 90s when he claimed that theology cannot subvert the law of the land lest we abide anarchy.

Oh yes. That darn First Amendment, subverting our Constitutional system. Individual liberties? Freedom of Conscience? Who do these anarchists think they are? Americans? [emoji38]

 

[American]

I was mocking constitutional originalism. How'd you miss that...especially as tavern tender?

Mocking what you don't understand.

 

[calamity]

Mocking what you don't understand.

Oh, I understand it alright. Hence the mocking.

 

[Thoreau72]

Obviously slavery was the reality of the time. That's why interpreting the constitution through the eyes of the people writing it at that time needs to be called just about the the stupidest idea of all time.

I'm sure you know that the Constitution is and was a political document when it was written, and therefore compromise was included on the slavery issue. So the first paragraph of Section 9 of Article I specified that slavery would be protected until 1808, at which time things could change.

So while the writers were forced to accept it as a political compromise, they made it clear that 20 years later things were likely to change, regarding slavery.

 

[American]

Oh, I understand it alright. Hence the mocking.

You mock the Constitution itself, because there is only two prescribed methods to change the document.

 

[calamity]

You mock the Constitution itself, because there is only two prescribed methods to change the document.

I rightfully mock people who uphold the "originalist" version of a constitution written by slave holders, floggers and civil leaders of a society that condoned public executions. We probably ought add too people who advocated the extermination of the original inhabitants of the country, just for ****s and giggles.

 

[calamity]

I'm sure you know that the Constitution is and was a political document when it was written, and therefore compromise was included on the slavery issue. So the first paragraph of Section 9 of Article I specified that slavery would be protected until 1808, at which time things could change.

So while the writers were forced to accept it as a political compromise, they made it clear that 20 years later things were likely to change, regarding slavery.

Nothing wrong with change...too bad Scalia was incapable of it.

 

[Deuce]

well that was how it was originally intended, but too many people starting with FDR couldn't leave well enough alone and now the Second amendment will clash with some legitimate actions by NYS. banning guns is never legitimate BTW

Wouldn't Scalia have suggested it is? Original intent, as you say.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wouldn't Scalia have suggested it is? Original intent, as you say.

amending the constitution was part of the original intent and the 14th amendment was such a thing

 

[matchlight]

Hard to argue against this take.

Looking Back - The New Yorker



Good riddance to a backward ****. The country can breathe a sigh of relief now that this caveman is dead and gone.

More witless slop, which is what I expect from that leftist rag. Anyone who cites Louis Brandeis alongside John Marshall as one of the Court's "great justices" does not know what the hell he is talking about. The author's attempt to portray Justice Scalia as personally biased against homosexuals is equally lame. The quotation from Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is entirely accurate. Several members of the Court have signed on to the homosexual agenda, as Scalia described that term. And many Americans do view homosexuality as immoral and destructive, and do not want people who openly engage in homosexual conduct as their business partners or boarders, or as their children's teachers and scoutmasters.

Having seen the OP demonstrate his almost complete lack of knowledge of constitutional law several times, I give his nasty, spiteful remarks about this great man all the weight they deserve.

 

[calamity]

More witless slop, which is what I expect from that leftist rag. Anyone who cites Louis Brandeis alongside John Marshall as one of the Court's "great justices" does not know what the hell he is talking about. The author's attempt to portray Justice Scalia as personally biased against homosexuals is equally lame. The quotation from Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is entirely accurate. Several members of the Court have signed on to the homosexual agenda, as Scalia described that term. And many Americans do view homosexuality as immoral and destructive, and do not want people who openly engage in homosexual conduct as their business partners or boarders, or as their children's teachers and scoutmasters.

They may and do, but that is irrelevant. What people think of gays should have no bearing on law, if one holds to the 14th Amendment, which Scalia chose not to do. Hence, he was a bigoted asshole who stuck to the Constitution only when it suited him.

Having seen the OP demonstrate his almost complete lack of knowledge of constitutional law several times, I give his nasty, spiteful remarks about this great man all the weight they deserve.

Yeah, I cleaned your clock more than once on legal matters relating to bigotry and discrimination. And, you have shown us all repeatedly that you are quite bigoted against gays, Muslims, and pretty much anyone whose opinion is left of Attila the Hun.

 

[Absentglare]

Oh yes. That darn First Amendment, subverting our Constitutional system. Individual liberties? Freedom of Conscience? Who do these anarchists think they are? Americans? [emoji38]

Individual liberty is not the same thing as forcing your employees to adhere to your personal beliefs. That's not freedom, that's oppression.

I suppose it should be no surprise that 200 years of religious freedom has made some people zealous and abusive.

 

[calamity]

Individual liberty is not the same thing as forcing your employees to adhere to your personal beliefs. That's not freedom, that's oppression.

I suppose it should be no surprise that 200 years of religious freedom has made some people zealous and abusive.

If we're referring to the Hobby Lobby decision, it's probably right on the line of an overreach. The establishment clause in the First has several limits, primary among them is that someone's expression of religion shall not do harm to another.

Hobby Lobby simply wanted to opt out from the contraception requirement in the ACA, arguing that it violated their freedom of religion. It's not like they demanded employees pray at 10AM or that atheists at their company would be denied access to their health plan. They just denied free access to contraception to everyone. So, if there was discrimination, it was not religious. It maybe could be argued that there was sex based discrimination, however. But, that wasn't the fight.

Now, had HL decided to enforce a goofy religious agenda like Christian Science or Jehovah Witness nonsense which then as a result actually took life saving measures off the insured list, then they would have lost the case, since those actions would be likely to cause harm. But, taking B/C off the list...no harm.

It's one of the few instances regarding religion, morality and cultural matters where Scalia may actually have had it right.

 

[LowDown]

Hard to argue against this take.

Looking Back - The New Yorker



Good riddance to a backward ****. The country can breathe a sigh of relief now that this caveman is dead and gone.

The list of Scalia's critics shows what a truly great man he was. They want to shred the Constitution and do away with our rights and liberties in the name of "social justice."

 

[calamity]

The list of Scalia's critics shows what a truly great man he was. They want to shred the Constitution and do away with our rights and liberties in the name of "social justice."

Scalia wanted to shred the Constitution and do away with gay rights and liberties in the name of "moral opprobrium."

 

[LowDown]

Scalia wanted to shred the Constitution and do away with gay rights and liberties in the name of "moral opprobrium."

Nope, exactly the opposite. Scalia found no gay rights in the Constitution beyond ordinary civil rights that apply to anyone. Liberals are forever trying to use jurisprudence to create privileges for their favorite groups out of thin air. They wanted the 9 justices on the Supreme Court to be our rulers with the power to create any new laws they wanted with whatever moral fad tickled their fancy. There could be no clearer example of this than liberals going to the courts to get gay marriage made a right. Scalia opposed this.

 

[David_N]

Nope, exactly the opposite. Scalia found no gay rights in the Constitution beyond ordinary civil rights that apply to anyone. Liberals are forever trying to use jurisprudence to create privileges for their favorite groups out of thin air. They wanted the 9 justices on the Supreme Court to be our rulers with the power to create any new laws they wanted with whatever moral fad tickled their fancy. There could be no clearer example of this than liberals going to the courts to get gay marriage made a right. Scalia opposed this.

Yeah, ending slavery and desegregation. All "Moral Fads." Damn Liberals.. What's next, making it illegal to torture your child in an attempt to make him straight?

 

[Absentglare]

If we're referring to the Hobby Lobby decision, it's probably right on the line of an overreach. The establishment clause in the First has several limits, primary among them is that someone's expression of religion shall not do harm to another.

Hobby Lobby simply wanted to opt out from the contraception requirement in the ACA, arguing that it violated their freedom of religion. It's not like they demanded employees pray at 10AM or that atheists at their company would be denied access to their health plan. They just denied free access to contraception to everyone. So, if there was discrimination, it was not religious. It maybe could be argued that there was sex based discrimination, however. But, that wasn't the fight.

Now, had HL decided to enforce a goofy religious agenda like Christian Science or Jehovah Witness nonsense which then as a result actually took life saving measures off the insured list, then they would have lost the case, since those actions would be likely to cause harm. But, taking B/C off the list...no harm.

It's one of the few instances regarding religion, morality and cultural matters where Scalia may actually have had it right.

It was allowing the law of religion to subvert the law of the land.

It is a sure flip flop for Scalia :

"WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court confronted the case of Native Americans who were fired for smoking an illegal drug during a religious ceremony, Justice Antonin Scalia called a halt to granting religious exemptions under the Constitution's protection for the "free exercise" of religion. It "would be courting anarchy" to permit "religious objectors" to ignore the law, he said."

1993 religious freedom act is at heart of contraception case - latimes

Apparently, Scalia thought Christian laws are more important than US law, but other religions can go **** themselves.

 

[LowDown]

I rightfully mock people who uphold the "originalist" version of a constitution written by slave holders, floggers and civil leaders of a society that condoned public executions. We probably ought add too people who advocated the extermination of the original inhabitants of the country, just for ****s and giggles.

Some of the people who ratified the Constitution fell into those categories, but not the majority. It was ratified by the American people with all their faults and warts. How could it be otherwise?

It is a base and morally bankrupt position to say that the worth of the Constitution depends entirely on who wrote it. But isn't that the whole basis of progressive criticism these days on just about anything?

 

[calamity]

It was allowing the law of religion to subvert the law of the land.

I've been kind of following those cases lately. Here is an interesting article discussing some of the guidelines for when religion is allowed to subvert the law of the land.
Establishment Clause Limitations | Pew Research Center

It is a sure flip flop for Scalia :

"WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court confronted the case of Native Americans who were fired for smoking an illegal drug during a religious ceremony, Justice Antonin Scalia called a halt to granting religious exemptions under the Constitution's protection for the "free exercise" of religion. It "would be courting anarchy" to permit "religious objectors" to ignore the law, he said."

1993 religious freedom act is at heart of contraception case - latimes

Apparently, Scalia thought Christian laws are more important than US law, but other religions can go **** themselves.

Scalia a hypocrite? :shock:

Let's face it, Scalia was for Constitutional interpretation until he was against it.

Righties worshiping at his alter of originalism are blinded by their own bigotry.