If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Out of all stupid things Antonin Scalia has said or written about homosexuality and equal rights for gay Americans, here are absolutely the 7 worst   (motherjones.com) divider line 208
    More: Asinine, Scalia, Americans, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sexual intimacy, adulterers, life partner, LGBT rights, Defense of Marriage Act  
•       •       •

8655 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Mar 2013 at 11:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 11:29:35 AM  

Nome de Plume: A lot of straw in that article.


Far more than a lot. What a laughable piece.
 
2013-03-26 11:29:52 AM  

Felgraf: hubiestubert: Yeah. It's more than time to get past this. Using the Bible to back you up on keeping rights from folks, when folks within said faith can't even agree on it, is automatically a violation of folks' right to worship freely. UUs. Methodists. Even some Baptists. Even Catholics. There is no consensus on this issue, and there are plenty of clergy who have stood on the matter of marriage equality.

And the United Church of Christ. Who had ads banned from television, 'cause promoting love and tolerance is waaaayyyy to controversial, apparently.

I recall going to a gay wedding presided over by the pastors at the church I grew up in when I was five. I hated it, but that was because I was five, and bored out of my goddamn skull....


I remember those ads! They were awesome and yeah, it was pretty sad when they were taken off the air for being "too controversial"...at 3AM. Like the "controversial" alternate ending to I Am Legend where he peacefully solves his conflict rather than chucking a grenade through a window. Cause damnit, son, this is AMERICA! If you're not going to blow some shiat up, I'm not sure WHAT you're all about!

And I'd just appreciate if the Fundies could pick a target and stick with it. I'm not sure you get to use a passage from the Torah to enable your homophobia while ALSO being anti-Semitic. I mean choose ONE, you don't get to hate both.
 
2013-03-26 11:30:09 AM  

vpb: namatad: Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?
He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.

He doesn't even pretend to be impartial.  This this guy is undermining the credibility of the court.  I am starting to wonder if it is intentional.


What are you talking about? Scalia is the father of the "strict constructionist" argument; of course he pretends to be impartial. Maybe impartial is the wrong word: he claims to be unbiased by personal opinions and rules strictly by what the founders intended (which, of course, perfectly is mirrored by the views of modern conservatives.) His opinion of gays as inherently corrupt and sinful individuals has nothing to do with how he will rule. No, the fact that the founders would have been offended by two men marrying one another.

Of course, when confronted with an issue where modern society would clearly reject the views of the founders, he says he's never considered himself a strict constructionist. Funny, that.
 
2013-03-26 11:31:45 AM  

vernonFL: In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.


If she said that, it's very stupid/disingenuous. Orly Taitz and Ted Nugent are trolls. Sheriff Joe is a scary despot.
 
2013-03-26 11:33:02 AM  
His ass must be jealous of all the shiat that falls out of his mouth.
 
2013-03-26 11:33:58 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: In all fairness, pretty much everything out of Scalia's mouth is stupid. This is the guy who once said that torture doesn't violate the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because it's not punishment. Some misfiring neurons in the gray mass of goo that passes for a brain in his skull actually managed to flop his big stupid jaw up and down and vibrate his vocal cords and pump his lungs to make those sounds come out of his fat gob. I had a retarded kid as a neighbor for a while who'd stand out in the backyard smacking himself on the head over and over with a tree branch going "HYEEEOOOOOOWWWWWWNGGGG" over and over again, and that kid is a freaking Einstein-level genius compared to Scalia.


I have all of his books. Very insightful.
 
2013-03-26 11:35:37 AM  
We get it, he's pre-Vatican 2 Catholic....
 
2013-03-26 11:35:39 AM  
I'm shocked that the guy who explained away torture as not being cruel and unusual by saying "it was ok cause the detainees weren't being punished for a crime" would similarly be hypocritical or idiotic when explaining away gay banning laws.

He seems like such an upstanding and moral person.
 
2013-03-26 11:36:29 AM  
Scalia is a dick, and he's VERY proud of it. He's not a decent human being.
 
2013-03-26 11:37:30 AM  
Where in the constitution does it say you can make fun of him for that?
 
2013-03-26 11:38:37 AM  
There is only one positive thing that might ever come from Scalia's life: Hopefully, his tenure will result in some sort of future overhaul in the impeachment processes or term limits for Supreme Court justices, so that we'll never again have to put up with judges who are either completely incompetent, completely bought and paid for, completely senile or all three.
 
2013-03-26 11:39:19 AM  
Well he's already gone all in with "gays might hurt kids in the future" line.

Roberts is questioning if Hollingsworth is even allowed to bring the case.
 
2013-03-26 11:41:37 AM  
I read what seems to me to be very selectively chosen remarks in the context of states rights.  Absent the topic of homosexuality, I agree with much of what he is quoted as saying - I'd rather read the entire opinion(s).

From my perspective, this marriage issue comes down to three questions:

1. can a majority of the citizens of a sovereign state limit "marriage" to a man and a woman;
2. can the federal government do number 1; and
3. does the federal constitutional right to equal protection under law trump numbers 1 and 2.

I have no personal opinion on the subject because I have not had any reason to investigate the issue, but it seems to me that the nation would be best served by number 3.
 
2013-03-26 11:43:00 AM  
SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
Arguments done. #scotus won't uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.


Kennedy is a tool bag
 
2013-03-26 11:43:53 AM  

Glancing Blow: 1. can a majority of the citizens of a sovereign state limit "marriage" to a man and a woman;


For the Prop 8 portion, it is more 1. can a majority of the citizens of a sovereign state remove the right of same-sex couples to marry, after they've already had it, by limiting the definition of "marriage" to a man and a woman.

Slight difference.
 
2013-03-26 11:52:28 AM  
 
2013-03-26 11:52:43 AM  
#8 The homo-gays make my bible tickle.
 
2013-03-26 11:53:09 AM  
Thanks, Reagan!
 
2013-03-26 11:58:15 AM  

bulldg4life: SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
Arguments done. #scotus won't uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.

Kennedy is a tool bag


Aside from the idiocy of thinking it's too early to rule on same sex marriage (is he hoping that if he shuts his eyes tight enough and goes into earmuff mode the issue will just go away?), does that mean that gay marriage is legal again in Cali?  The 'won't uphold or strike down' seems a bit confusing to me.  I was under the impression that they'd have to decide on way or another.
 
2013-03-26 12:01:30 PM  

Dinki: His arguments on gays in the military, DOMA, abortion rights, and citizens united speak otherwise.


To be fair, even though i hate the outcomes, the opinion in Citizens United actually comports with court precedent and was likely correctly decided (as a legal mater).  As for abortion, the arguments Scalia makes are in fact predicated upon some fairly solid legal reasoning, even if i totally disagree. His homosexual jurisprudence is much messier, but still emanates from a core federalism position that is not too out there, legally speaking.

Now what he says outside his opinions, well that is different, but given that i know many people who know Nino personally, and even clerked for him, the consensus is the man is a world class troll and loves getting a rise out of people.
 
2013-03-26 12:02:18 PM  

Karac: bulldg4life: SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
Arguments done. #scotus won't uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm.  #prop8 will stay invalidated.

Kennedy is a tool bag

Aside from the idiocy of thinking it's too early to rule on same sex marriage (is he hoping that if he shuts his eyes tight enough and goes into earmuff mode the issue will just go away?), does that mean that gay marriage is legal again in Cali?  The 'won't uphold or strike down' seems a bit confusing to me.  I was under the impression that they'd have to decide on way or another.


The circuit court ruling against prop 8 will stand, leaving same-sex marriage legal in CA.
 
2013-03-26 12:02:48 PM  
Scalia LITERALLY reads the Constitution and if you study it out then you will see that the Founders agreed on everything, but especially that marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Just study it out like Justice Scalia did.  Study it out.
 
2013-03-26 12:03:53 PM  

Car_Ramrod: The first thing I thought of when reading the article was that "Flagpole Sitta" was an awesome song, and Harvey Danger is underrated.


Your thread jack, let me join you :)
 
2013-03-26 12:04:24 PM  

namatad: Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?
He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.


Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself over Obamacare even though his wife is a healthcare lobbyist.

So yes, he SHOULD recuse himself, but he absolutely won't.
 
2013-03-26 12:04:41 PM  
""[A job] interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer..."

Why does be say Republican specifically? Why not political affiliation? It's almost as if he's implying that democrats get special treatment( i.e. people that are near).

I might be reading to much into it, but you would think that when they write they would chose their words pretty carefully.
 
2013-03-26 12:05:29 PM  

hubiestubert: Reposted for relevance...


Y'know, there's a reason agnostics are around.  God needed to put someone in the world to state how full of shiat the Bible is.

/And the Koran
//And the Torah
///And every "holy book" in existence
////When taken literally and NOT as a guide
 
2013-03-26 12:05:37 PM  

Karac: bulldg4life: SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
Arguments done. #scotus won't uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.

Kennedy is a tool bag

Aside from the idiocy of thinking it's too early to rule on same sex marriage (is he hoping that if he shuts his eyes tight enough and goes into earmuff mode the issue will just go away?), does that mean that gay marriage is legal again in Cali?  The 'won't uphold or strike down' seems a bit confusing to me.  I was under the impression that they'd have to decide on way or another.


The appellants (the people who appealed to the Supreme Court, the pro-Prop 8 people) don't have standing.  Since they are neither representatives of nor agents of the state, they don't have an interest in the state law being upheld.  As such, the appeals court decision that Prop 8 had to go stands, but it creates no precedent at the federal level, so other states can still have similar laws.
 
2013-03-26 12:05:51 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.


That's all well and good, and I have no problem with the fact that the man is a bigot and a homophobe.

What pisses me off is that rather than ruling on the merits of the case, he decides how he wants to rule based on his farked-up morals and then twists logic to come up with a way to legally justify his position.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 12:06:11 PM  
Impeach Scalia.
 
2013-03-26 12:06:48 PM  

Karac: Aside from the idiocy of thinking it's too early to rule on same sex marriage (is he hoping that if he shuts his eyes tight enough and goes into earmuff mode the issue will just go away?), does that mean that gay marriage is legal again in Cali?  The 'won't uphold or strike down' seems a bit confusing to me.  I was under the impression that they'd have to decide on way or another.


The liberal judges and the chief justice could decide that there is no standing. They would vacate the ninth circuit decision and stick with the district court decision.  Or, they can dismiss the case since they can't reach a decision (Kennedy being a tool bag scared of making a decision) which would leave the ninth circuit decision in place.

It's not a BAD thing. Just not a big step forward.

Of course, there is a DOMA case coming up, so who knows...
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 12:07:57 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: PC LOAD LETTER: My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.

That's all well and good, and I have no problem with the fact that the man is a bigot and a homophobe.


Who cares if he is smart if he's such a total hypocrite.  Being hypocritical isn't usually considered a virtue in a fair judge.

I am, of course, mostly talking about his bullshiat about "legislating from the bench" when he does it himself in just about every case.
 
2013-03-26 12:09:23 PM  

Flaming Yawn: What's saddening is that there's are a thousand little kids somewhere who will grow up to be just as bad if not worse.


but when those new round of asshole kids tease a boy hanging out with another boy and say "If you like Steve so much, why don't you marry him?"

Adam can say "Maybe I will farknuts, what of it?"
 
2013-03-26 12:10:32 PM  

angrymacface: Glancing Blow: 1. can a majority of the citizens of a sovereign state limit "marriage" to a man and a woman;

For the Prop 8 portion, it is more 1. can a majority of the citizens of a sovereign state remove the right of same-sex couples to marry, after they've already had it, by limiting the definition of "marriage" to a man and a woman.

Slight difference.


That's very similar to the tool that many states are using in their attempt to abolish abortion.
 
2013-03-26 12:11:22 PM  

Last Man on Earth: The appellants (the people who appealed to the Supreme Court, the pro-Prop 8 people) don't have standing.  Since they are neither representatives of nor agents of the state, they don't have an interest in the state law being upheld.  As such, the appeals court decision that Prop 8 had to go stands, but it creates no precedent at the federal level, so other states can still have similar laws.


It would create no Federal precedent if the SCOTUS backs out of a decision on standing.  But, wouldn't it then still hold as a precedent in the 9th Circuit, meaning that litigants could take the broad 9th Circuit ruling and force SSM legality in at least Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon (plus Washington and California)?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 12:11:29 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself over Obamacare even though his wife is a healthcare lobbyist.


He also didn't recuse himself in cases involved Monsanto even though he was employed by them.  Even worse.

Scalia has also made it clear in interviews that's prejudged some cases.

Both of these are grounds for impeachment and dismissal.
 
2013-03-26 12:20:14 PM  

Grungehamster: What are you talking about? Scalia is the father of the "strict constructionist" argument; of course he pretends to be impartial. Maybe impartial is the wrong word: he claims to be unbiased by personal opinions and rules strictly by what the founders intended (which, of course, perfectly is mirrored by the views of modern conservatives.) His opinion of gays as inherently corrupt and sinful individuals has nothing to do with how he will rule. No, the fact that the founders would have been offended by two men marrying one another.ra


Which of the founding fathers does he channel?  If we interrupt him while channeling will it cause Scalia irreparable brain damage.  Does his wife prefer to make love to him or his "founding father" persona?

I'm just asking questions.
 
2013-03-26 12:21:22 PM  

syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.


Scalia IS The butt plug.
 
2013-03-26 12:23:31 PM  

Graffito: Grungehamster: What are you talking about? Scalia is the father of the "strict constructionist" argument; of course he pretends to be impartial. Maybe impartial is the wrong word: he claims to be unbiased by personal opinions and rules strictly by what the founders intended (which, of course, perfectly is mirrored by the views of modern conservatives.) His opinion of gays as inherently corrupt and sinful individuals has nothing to do with how he will rule. No, the fact that the founders would have been offended by two men marrying one another.ra

Which of the founding fathers does he channel?  If we interrupt him while channeling will it cause Scalia irreparable brain damage.  Does his wife prefer to make love to him or his "founding father" persona?

I'm just asking questions.


All of them, OK?  He knows exactly what they wanted.  You haven't done your homework.  Study it out.
 
2013-03-26 12:24:05 PM  

syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.


His asshole is probably way too tight.

Still, my favorite part of his dissent in Lawrence had nothing to do with gay rights; it was when he groused that it hadn't been long enough since the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Like there was some reverse statute of limitations on Supreme Court decisions before which no new decisions could be made.
 
2013-03-26 12:25:21 PM  

Graffito: Grungehamster: What are you talking about? Scalia is the father of the "strict constructionist" argument; of course he pretends to be impartial. Maybe impartial is the wrong word: he claims to be unbiased by personal opinions and rules strictly by what the founders intended (which, of course, perfectly is mirrored by the views of modern conservatives.) His opinion of gays as inherently corrupt and sinful individuals has nothing to do with how he will rule. No, the fact that the founders would have been offended by two men marrying one another.ra

Which of the founding fathers does he channel?  If we interrupt him while channeling will it cause Scalia irreparable brain damage.  Does his wife prefer to make love to him or his "founding father" persona?

I'm just asking questions.


Let's just say Sally Hemmings Night is very popular in the Scalia Household.
 
2013-03-26 12:25:37 PM  

vernonFL: In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.


His interview on 60 Minutes convinced me of that. 'Torture does not violate the 4th amendment because it's not punitive.'
 
2013-03-26 12:27:16 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.


A smart, despicable excuse for a human being...
 
2013-03-26 12:27:50 PM  

Last Man on Earth: The appellants (the people who appealed to the Supreme Court, the pro-Prop 8 people) don't have standing. Since they are neither representatives of nor agents of the state, they don't have an interest in the state law being upheld. As such, the appeals court decision that Prop 8 had to go stands, but it creates no precedent at the federal level, so other states can still have similar laws.


This may give us insight to what SCOTUS might do with DOMA.  I get the feeling it's going DOWN coz of states' rights.
 
2013-03-26 12:33:11 PM  

hubiestubert: It's going to be an interesting day. For those who show up today, wear red. It's time to move past this, and finally deliver on rights to all our citizens. On grounds of religious freedom, on grounds of equality under the law, on grounds of privacy. It is long past time.


No I won't.  Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing.  Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead?  Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)?  Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment.  Sorry.

/gay
//also not changing my avatar to that idiotic red equality sign
 
2013-03-26 12:33:37 PM  
I read only the first three but I didn't really find his reasoning off base
. He is basically pointing out moral relativity and communities long standind jurisdictions to create laws to change behavior. He is a wind bag.though and I think his rehotoric hurts the court
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 12:34:52 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: It's not trolling when you have real power. Maybe when he speaks, he's just toying with people. When he votes, he's crushing them.


That's why it is so important to avoid the appearance of impartiality.  The court's only power is that people respect it's rulings.

It's only a matter of time before people stop giving a damn what they thing if this crap goes on for too long.
 
2013-03-26 12:35:35 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: There is only one positive thing that might ever come from Scalia's life: Hopefully, his tenure will result in some sort of future overhaul in the impeachment processes or term limits for Supreme Court justices, so that we'll never again have to put up with judges who are either completely incompetent, completely bought and paid for, completely senile or all three.


Have you ever read the history of the Supreme Court?  Its full of shady characters going back to the first chief Justice (John Jay) who tried to get legislation passed to ban Catholics from public office in his home state.

/the Supreme Court is fine - fix Congress first
 
2013-03-26 12:36:36 PM  

d23: Impeach Scalia.


For what exactly?  For having an opinion?
 
2013-03-26 12:37:35 PM  

gingerjet: No I won't. Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing. Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead? Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)? Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment. Sorry.


So, basically, you don't understand the concept of symbolism and it makes you very angry that other people do?
 
2013-03-26 12:37:53 PM  

gingerjet: hubiestubert: It's going to be an interesting day. For those who show up today, wear red. It's time to move past this, and finally deliver on rights to all our citizens. On grounds of religious freedom, on grounds of equality under the law, on grounds of privacy. It is long past time.

No I won't.  Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing.  Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead?  Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)?  Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment.  Sorry.

/gay
//also not changing my avatar to that idiotic red equality sign


Um, I'll buy you a beer?
 
Displayed 50 of 208 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report