Why would we want more judges like Anthony Scalia?

[SonOfDaedalus]

In Lawrence vs Texas (2003) a gay man was arrested for having sex with another man in his own home.

This is that satute:

Texas' anti-sodomy statute, the "Homosexual Conduct" law, made it a Class C misdemeanor if someone "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex".

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This case went to the Supreme Court and the Texas law was struck down as unconstitutional.

But guess who didn't vote to strike down this absurd law? Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.

The whole idea that these people care about freedom is absurd. They just want to persecute gays and institute a theocracy. They just want a bunch of extremist Catholics on the court.

I'm pretty sure even more Republicans don't want another Scalia or any more of these Catholic extremists. Most Republicans don't want abortion banned. It's just the extreme religious nuts in the party. The American Taliban.

 

[VanceMack]

I reckon if you bothered reading their dissenting opinions you would know more about what you were talking about before you started bleating on in what ultimately amounts to nothing more than your own hatred and anti-religious bigotry.

 

[Craig234]

We don't. I was just hearing a story about Ruth Ginsberg. There was an important case about gender discrimination, about the Virginia Military Institute being male-only. It was an eight-vote court because Thomas had a son at VMI and recused himself. It was expected to be a close vote at best.

But Ginsberg led the court to a 7-1 vote allowing women. The one no vote: Scalia. He said, she said, that it would destroy VMI. It's been decades - who was right about that? Hint: Ginsberg. Yet many ignorant radicals cheer Scalia.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I reckon if you bothered reading their dissenting opinions you would know more about what you were talking about before you started bleating on in what ultimately amounts to nothing more than your own hatred and anti-religious bigotry.

Who cares about his dissenting opinion? Texas had a law that made it illegal to have sex with someone of the same sex in your own home. Scalia and the other theocrats thought that was prefectly contitutional.

What did I say that is untrue? Do you agree with Scalia?

By the way, I'm very religious. I'm just not interested in coercing others or joining in with the religious frauds like Trump and Falwell Jr.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

We don't. I was just hearing a story about Ruth Ginsberg. There was an important case about gender discrimination, about the Virginia Military Institute being male-only. It was an eight-vote court because Thomas had a son at VMI and recused himself. It was expected to be a close vote at best.

But Ginsberg led the court to a 7-1 vote allowing women. The one no vote: Scalia. He said, she said, that it would destroy VMI. It's been decades - who was right about that? Hint: Ginsberg. Yet many ignorant radicals cheer Scalia.

That's a great example of why Scalia was a terrible judge. The American people don't want more judges like Scalia. They don't want to be ruled by religious conservatives.

 

[Gaius46]

Who’s Anthony Scalia? The man’s name was Antonin.

 

[Gaius46]

Who cares about his dissenting opinion? Texas had a law that made it illegal to have sex with someone of the same sex in your own home. Scalia and the other theocrats thought that was prefectly contitutional.

What did I say that is untrue? Do you agree with Scalia?

By the way, I'm very religious. I'm just not interested in coercing others or joining in with the religious frauds like Trump and Falwell Jr.

You should care because if you don’t read the dissent you are ignorant to why he disagreed.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You should care because if you don’t read the dissent you are ignorant to why he disagreed.

The law was blatantly unconstitutional. How does the government have any right to control the sex acts of citizens in their own home?

The reality is he was a homophobe and sexist. His prejudices clouded his judgment regarding the Constitution.

Do you agree with his decision? Does the government have the Constitutional right to create a law banning homosexual sex?

 

[Gaius46]

The law was blatantly unconstitutional. How does the government have any right to control the sex acts of citizens in their own home?

The reality is he was a homophobe and sexist. His prejudices clouded his judgment regarding the Constitution.

Do you agree with his decision? Does the government have the Constitutional right to create a law banning homosexual sex?

I do not agree with laws that interfere in any personal relationships between consenting adults. Further I didn’t agree with laws that essentially gave homosexual relationships 2nd class status to heterosexual ones.

That is not the point.

A judges job isn’t to make social policy. It’s his job to interpret the law that others have enacted, determine whether it comports with the constitution and make sure it is enforced equitably.

 

[ludin]

In Lawrence vs Texas (2003) a gay man was arrested for having sex with another man in his own home.

This is that satute:

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This case went to the Supreme Court and the Texas law was struck down as unconstitutional.

But guess who didn't vote to strike down this absurd law? Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.

The whole idea that these people care about freedom is absurd. They just want to persecute gays and institute a theocracy. They just want a bunch of extremist Catholics on the court.

I'm pretty sure even more Republicans don't want another Scalia or any more of these Catholic extremists. Most Republicans don't want abortion banned. It's just the extreme religious nuts in the party. The American Taliban.

Because Scalia was weighing the law vs the constitution as he was supposed to do.
he wasn't putting his political beliefs into it.

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change"

Justice Thomas wrote in a separate, two-paragraph dissent that the law the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly", a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut, but he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He added that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law

i know i know you guys are not worried about facts. SCOTUS should be worried about facts not feelings.
that is why leftist judges are so bad in their decisions most of the time. They care more about feelings than facts or the constitution.

unfortunately we have allowed our judges to have a power that they are not supposed to have.
For some reason they have the ability to change the constitution now. which is unconstitutional.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Because Scalia was weighing the law vs the constitution as he was supposed to do.
he wasn't putting his political beliefs into it.



He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change"

Justice Thomas wrote in a separate, two-paragraph dissent that the law the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly", a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut, but he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He added that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law

i know i know you guys are not worried about facts. SCOTUS should be worried about facts not feelings.
that is why leftist judges are so bad in their decisions most of the time. They care more about feelings than facts or the constitution.

unfortunately we have allowed our judges to have a power that they are not supposed to have.
For some reason they have the ability to change the constitution now. which is unconstitutional.

Is Thomas not familiar with the 4th Amendment? You know, the one that affords people the right to privacy and to be secure in thier person, house and effects?

Those three voting to uphold the law in Texas was the unconstitutional part. What two people do behind closed doors would fall into security in both ones person AND thier house, amd they damned well knew ir.

 

[LowDown]

In Lawrence vs Texas (2003) a gay man was arrested for having sex with another man in his own home.

This is that satute:

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This case went to the Supreme Court and the Texas law was struck down as unconstitutional.

But guess who didn't vote to strike down this absurd law? Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.

The whole idea that these people care about freedom is absurd. They just want to persecute gays and institute a theocracy. They just want a bunch of extremist Catholics on the court.

I'm pretty sure even more Republicans don't want another Scalia or any more of these Catholic extremists. Most Republicans don't want abortion banned. It's just the extreme religious nuts in the party. The American Taliban.

Scalia, et al., had nothing in particular against gays. They just didn't see where the Constitution forbids making sodomy illegal.

If people don't like laws like that they should get the legislature to change them. Going to the courts all the time to rectify these problems is about to bite liberals in the rear.

 

[ludin]

Is Thomas not familiar with the 4th Amendment? You know, the one that affords people the right to privacy and to be secure in thier person, house and effects?

Those three voting to uphold the law in Texas was the unconstitutional part. What two people do behind closed doors would fall into security in both ones person AND thier house, amd they damned well knew ir.

see why they dissented. i posted it for you.
why did you not read it?

 

[Craig234]

If people don't like laws like that they should get the legislature to change them. Going to the courts all the time to rectify these problems is about to bite liberals in the rear.

You don't understand the constitution at all. The question is, where does the constitution give the government the power to make sodomy illegal? I could explain the legal issue, but it's clear there's no point doing so.

 

[Gaius46]

You don't understand the constitution at all. The question is, where does the constitution give the government the power to make sodomy illegal? I could explain the legal issue, but it's clear there's no point doing so.

The Constitution says nothing about whether states can or can’t outlaw sodomy. In fact the power for a state to regulate sexual behavior is implicit in the 10th amendment.

O’Connor concurred with the majority but took issue with their reasoning. She would have preferred to strike down the law on equal protection grounds - the law only applied to male -male sodomy. She thought the law would likely be Constitutional had it also outlawed sodomy between males and females.

 

[Athanasius68]

The law was blatantly unconstitutional. How does the government have any right to control the sex acts of citizens in their own home?

The reality is he was a homophobe and sexist. His prejudices clouded his judgment regarding the Constitution.

Do you agree with his decision? Does the government have the Constitutional right to create a law banning homosexual sex?

The better question to be asked is does the Constitution prohibit the state of Texas from banning homosexual sex.

Scalia had a sign in his office, "Stupid- but Constitutional." He viewed his job as to interpret the law, and not make law.

The reason why there is such political turmoil regarding the appointing of SCOTUS justices is because the Progressives and liberals tend to view the courts as a 'super-legislature' to be deployed when the "People" act-- or do not act-- in a way the Progressive or liberal thinks he or she ought.

BTW-- Scalia thought the Texas law stupid. But he did not permit his personal opinion to cloud his professional judgement. That is what a judge should be doing. And those are the types of judges and justices Republicans seek to nominate and confirm.

 

[joko104]

The Supreme Court has been creating non-existence provisions of the Bill of Rights and erasing or diluting other provisions increasingly for 2 centuries. Scalia's stance was if it isn't in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction or authority. That controlling document says what is says and doesn't say what it doesn't.

Now it is like every Justice is each is a Judge Judy with each their own god-like wisdom they will impose on everyone out of thin air.

 

[joko104]

You don't understand the constitution at all. The question is, where does the constitution give the government the power to make sodomy illegal? I could explain the legal issue, but it's clear there's no point doing so.

Yeah, that is exactly 100% wrong. Where does the Constitution or Bill Of Rights say a state may not outlaw sodomy? Under your theory, no state could outlaw pedophilia either because the Constitution doesn't say they can - though certainly they are not the same. Either a state may or may not regulation sexual conduct.

 

[Yakshi]

Yes, I'm tired of wannabe originalists legislating from the bench like Scalia did.

Originalism was invented in the 1970s. It's funny how many dumdums they duped with it.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The Constitution says nothing about whether states can or can’t outlaw sodomy. In fact the power for a state to regulate sexual behavior is implicit in the 10th amendment.

O’Connor concurred with the majority but took issue with their reasoning. She would have preferred to strike down the law on equal protection grounds - the law only applied to male -male sodomy. She thought the law would likely be Constitutional had it also outlawed sodomy between males and females.

The majority ruled that the Constitution protects our right to privacy and personal autonomy. Do you disagree? Do you think the government should have the right to legislate our behavior in our own bedrooms? Do you disagree that we should at leat have autonomy in our own bedrooms with consenting adults?

The idea that you guys are supporters of personal freedom vs government tirany is a joke. You're theocratic authoritarians like the Taliban.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Yeah, that is exactly 100% wrong. Where does the Constitution or Bill Of Rights say a state may not outlaw sodomy? Under your theory, no state could outlaw pedophilia either because the Constitution doesn't say they can - though certainly they are not the same. Either a state may or may not regulation sexual conduct.

Can they make oral sex illegal? Can they make sex with the lights on illegal? Can they make certain sexual positions illegal? How much power do you think government should have over the private lives of citizens.

The majority ruled that the Constitution guarantees us some measure of privacy and autonomy. Of course, you believe the government should have control over every apsect of an individual's life.

 

[ludin]

The majority ruled that the Constitution protects our right to privacy and personal autonomy. Do you disagree? Do you think the government should have the right to legislate our behavior in our own bedrooms? Do you disagree that we should at leat have autonomy in our own bedrooms with consenting adults?

The idea that you guys are supporters of personal freedom vs government tirany is a joke. You're theocratic authoritarians like the Taliban.

i agree that if legislatures pass bad laws that legislatures need to fix it. not the job of the courts to do the legislatures job.

their job is to protect the constitution not re-write it.

 

[Yakshi]

i agree that if legislatures pass bad laws that legislatures need to fix it. not the job of the courts to do the legislatures job.

their job is to protect the constitution not re-write it.

It is the Supreme Court's job to strike down bad laws.

You don't like that, but really, your opinion doesn't matter.

Centuries from now, the Supreme Court will continue to strike down bad laws.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

i agree that if legislatures pass bad laws that legislatures need to fix it. not the job of the courts to do the legislatures job.

their job is to protect the constitution not re-write it.

Does the constitution give you the right to privacy and autonomy from government control?

The court said yes. Scalia said no.

 

[Rucker61]

Does the constitution give you the right to privacy and autonomy from government control?

The court said yes. Scalia said no.

The Constitution was about federal power, not state power.