He reserves his sodomy for the US Constitution.

The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."

... he does.

Asked by a man who knows what another man tastes like.

Yum!

In the circumstances the question makes an excellent point.

The fact that Scalia didn't feel it deserved an answer (as he inevitably would) proves the questioner's point. That it's none of anyone's business what two people do in the privacy of their own homes.

and besides everyone knows the only person that Scalia sodomizes is Clarence Thomas. Who loves it.

What a hypocrite. It's a question too personal to answer, but he supports the government being able to prosecute you for it.

I imagine he does, you know, since he's been screwing all of us up the ass with his "vision" of jurisprudence.

Scalia may call himself a "strict constructionist," but that's just blatant horse waste. He is nothing more than the mouthpiece for the extreme far right, and a sorry excuse for a judge.

It's a legitimite question. By some state's anti-sodomy laws any sexual contact outside of the missionary position could be labelled sodomy, so by that standard he probably has done it.

PS knumb-knuts you're a homophobic piece of shiat

Wow, that takes balls. But the questioner is absolutely correct, and he painted Scalia into a corner. If Scalia were to answer yes, he could be convicted by the very law he didn't want overturned. If he were to answer no, he is a prude. And he didn't answer at all, meaning what goes on in his bedroom is not our business, supporting the justices who overturned the law and making himself a hipocrit. Wow.

That was an awesome tactic to use in defense of his arguement. Well done, sir.

After looking at his picture, for his wife's sake, I hope he doesn't.

tnpir:

He is nothing more than the mouthpiece for the extreme far right, and a sorry excuse for a judge.

Umm, he is the far right. You don't think he came along after Bush do you?

doccm9

Not at all. He was appointed by Reagan in 1986, mostly as a nod to the religious right and ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. He tried it again by nominating Robert Bork the next year and failed.

My point is that he (and Thomas, for that matter) are highly inconsistent in their jurisprudence in that they appear to always take the far-right approach to any case; anyone who doubts need only remember he goes duck hunting with the vice-president. He frequently seems to take the approach that the 14th Amendment (which applies most of the Bill of Rights to the states) is a big joke, which is why he's the first to dissent in cases where blatant discrimination is struck down (see the Colorado Amendment 2 anti-gay rights case from mid 1990s to see what I mean).

To be fair, Justice Ginsberg does the same thing on the far left (though I cut her some slack because I've always advocated less-strict reading of the Constitution). However, this sort of political posturing on the Supreme Court, whether it be from the left or right, is scary and inappropriate.

Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia [Maureen] was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."

discussion of an issue in hypothetical is fine. being a rude asshole to a supreme court justice is not.

Sodomy - Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

According to a lot of people.. sex for anything other than procreation is sodomy. sex in unusual positions is sodomy..sex that's too kinky is sodomy..etc
its not just anal. although thats what its most known for.

if that supreme court justice is being a rude asshole, returning the favor isn't exactly over the top.

it makes a damned good point.

scalia shouldn't have to answer that question. no one should.

i only wonder if scalia let the sting of having the situation turned on him override what he could have learned from the question.

albo: discussion of an issue in hypothetical is fine. being a rude asshole to a supreme court justice is not.

You're missing the point. Scalia believes that it is the government's right to know what goes on in the bedroom of private citizens in the United States. The person simply called him on that - and Scalia failed his own test by refusing to answer, thus suggesting that, in actuality, it is NOT the right of the public to know what goes on in a private citizen's bedroom.

If you're a Supreme Court Justice, you're under a magnifying glass for inconsistency. That he would so blatantly disregard his own opinion or believes that the law should apply to one segment of society and not the other makes him unworthy of the respect normally given to a justice, in my opinion.

The followup from the questioner should have been: "Then you believe that no one should have to answer that question."

A better question might have been to ask, "millions of married stright couples engage activity that would legally qualify as sodomy. Should they be in prison?"

But I would definitely nominate this guy for the huge balls award.

Skail, making a point is one thing. making a point by embarassing your opponent and his family personally, ambushing him in public, is just plain rude and uncivil.

differences of opinion can be discussed without rudeness. this just adds to the coarsening of the public debate which people on all sides of the issue already complain about.

I want to find the guy who asked this question, move to Massachusetts, and MARRY HIM!

How is that different from being dragged in front of a judge and the rest of the nation if you're gay and performing sodomy, albo? As the courts have done in several high profile cases in Texas, from years ago (including the one that led to Scalia's comments which, in turn, got him into this mess)? How is it anymore rude than pulling someone in front of a jury of his peers, describing in explicit detail his sexual activities, and expecting them to also condemn him and perhaps even sentence him to a prison term?

No, no, it wasn't any more rude than what Scalia believes is appropriate for anyone else. It's his fault this happened to him, and he should take it like a man.

putting people in jail for doing something you don't deem worthy of responding to questions on is kinda rude too.

ok, its really friggin rude.

Questioner is an asshat. Scalia's personal behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with his application and interpretation of the law.

And I agreed with Lawrence v. Texas.

How is that different from being dragged in front of a judge and the rest of the nation if you're gay and performing sodomy, albo?

you clearly feel very strongly about this issue. but depth of feeling or heat of outrage does not exempt any of us from discussing the issue civilly.

albo

The topic of discussion was sodomy and the government's interference in our personal lives. Calling someone on their own hypocrisy isn't rude, it's smart.

albo, I prefer when people are held to their own standards of decency. If Justice Scalia believes that other people's sexual activities should be scrutinized by the public, then I have no problem with Justice Scalia's sexual activities being scrutinized by the public. After all, it was Scalia's own lack of civility that created this issue.

Now, if it was a question of the blue and not preceded by anything else, I'd agree with you. That simply isn't the case.

i thought it was asked quite civilly.

i could think of a blue million other ways to phrase it that would be quite uncivil.

mr scalia, does your wife like it up the pooper?
your honor, when was the last time you had a blowjob?
mr justice, sir, have you ever put your fist up your wifes cooch so far that she looked like a muppet?


it's a rude topic. it was approached and asked about in the most civil manner possible. it is kinda hard to discuss sodomy without using the word 'sodomy'.

mr justice, sir, have you ever put your fist up your wifes cooch so far that she looked like a muppet?

I've found a new catchphrase.

If Justice Scalia believes that other people's sexual activities should be scrutinized by the public

Apparently you don't understand how the law and the courts work. Scalia didn't write the law. Scalia didn't pass the law. Scalia didn't sign the law. Scalia didn't arrest those violating the law. Scalia didn't prosecute the persons violating the law.

Scalia did not argue the law's rectitude, propriety, or positive social value. All Scalia said was "Well, there's no Constitutional prohibition against the state passing laws like this, so the state can keep it in place."

What you're arguing for is judicial activism. You think that if Scalia thinks it shouldn't be a law, and if Scalia would blanche at such a law being applied to him, he should strike it down.

cosmic_music

i usually conversationally shorten it to 'buttmuppet'.

If Scalia were to answer yes, he could be convicted by the very law he didn't want overturned.

The law he voted against overturning is a Texas law that only applies to same-sex activity. It has no application to him and his wife in the DC area.

A better question might have been to ask, "millions of married straight couples engage activity that would legally qualify as sodomy. Should they be in prison?

Anybody asking that question fails to understand the doctrine of separation of powers. The answer to "should these people be in prison?" is for the legislature to provide. When the meaning of a law is clear courts are not supposed to balance costs and benefits. A law does not become unconstitutional merely because it is disobeyed or ineffective.

Ok ZAZ how about this

Justice Scalia on what basis do you make your decision that there's nothing in the constitution to prevent our government (federal or state) from creating laws that constrain what two consenting adults can do with each other sexually in the privacy of their own home?

All the above aside, I think it was a great question. :)

In fact, I think I'll ask that of any potential date in the future.

That was great. Good thing Scalia didn't have the audience as picked and prepped as some political figures make sure it is before they speak.

Justice Scalia on what basis do you make your decision that there's nothing in the constitution to prevent our government (federal or state) from creating laws that constrain what two consenting adults can do with each other sexually in the privacy of their own home?

RTFO.

Justice Scalia on what basis do you make your decision that there's nothing in the constitution to prevent our government (federal or state) from creating laws that constrain what two consenting adults can do with each other sexually in the privacy of their own home?

The obvious answer is because there's nothing in the constitution that says the government can't do that. It is settled law that states have the power to make laws applicable inside the home as well as outside, define so-called "victimless crimes", or eliminate consent of the "victim" as a defense to a crime. Why create a special exception for homosexual sodomy? It doesn't form part of any coherent set of enumerated or invented rights.

There is a precedent here in dealing with same-sex vs. married sodomy. Perhaps some of you lawyer types may be familiar with the little-known Supreme Court ruling: Browneye vs. The Broad with Constipation.

No, but his wife sodomizes him.

It doesn't form part of any coherent set of enumerated or invented rights.

Not true. The Lawrence case was decided based upon a rather long line of cases finding that the Constitution contains rights to individual privacy in such matters when the government cannot enumerate at least an interest (from reasonable to compelling depending upon the rights infringed) the justifies the intrusion. Scalia rejects this entirely (luckily in the minority on the court) in Lawrence. (BTW, if you reject this idea then youa re saying that government can prevent you from using birth control as this is where the idea really got started in Griswold v. Connecticut).

So the question is quite salient. If the government has a legitemateinterest in knowing such things, then you can't very well claim that your own conduct is sacrosanct and unavailable for inspection.

And the whole "its homo sex" thing is a false dichotomy created to avoid the issue. Most statute actually don't say anything about same sex at all, just sodomy outside of marriage. So 1) many straight people could be found guilty of it; and, 2) You can't very well deny people the insitution of marriage to a segment of society and then claim that the absense of such an institution makes their identical conduct illegal or hurtful to society. Well you can, but it would make you an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

Yeah, that'll win converts to your side.
If you aren't handed you way on a silver platter, beat everyone over the head with your ranting.

Skail, making a point is one thing. making a point by embarassing your opponent and his family personally, ambushing him in public, is just plain rude and uncivil.

That may well be, but we're talking about a man who believes people should be put in prison - with all the brutalization that entails - for taking a different stance than he.

If he thinks gays should be deprived of their freedom over the issue, he can at least tolerate a little embarrassment over it.

Thread is useless without pics. Of Scalia's wife.

It's ok to do that to a woman because they deserve it...it is not ok for a man to do it to another man because it's gross. ROFLOL. Sorry Im sick of hearing how it's natural to be gay....hmmm that's why I see gay bears and deer all the time...oh wait no I don't. Pack it if you must but do I have to hear about someone putting their Willy Wonka in someone's chocolate factory?

Tigger: In the circumstances the question makes an excellent point.

Exactly. As many others have said here, this is hypocrisy at its finest.

I hope Scalia dies a horrible and painful death.

He may not answer, but I will. Yes, I sodomize Scalia's wife. Happy?

What a bone head. He's so full of crap. Someone should beat him. Cum on already!

/not Scalia--he's a villain

moondawg32
Read about Bonobos. Much more closely related to us than bears. Im guessing you'll be quite shocked by their behavior.

The obvious answer is because there's nothing in the constitution that says the government can't do that. It is settled law that states have the power to make laws applicable inside the home as well as outside, define so-called "victimless crimes", or eliminate consent of the "victim" as a defense to a crime. Why create a special exception for homosexual sodomy? It doesn't form part of any coherent set of enumerated or invented rights.

The constitutional wonks here are gonna eat you alive. I'm pretty sure the US constitution only enumerates things the gov't CAN regulate/control.