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  
•       •       •

8652 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 01:46:49 PM
Scalia is a vile and disgusting little piece of human filth that will do us all a favor when he finally croaks.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:50 PM

Lawnchair: ShadowKamui:
Actually they can punt on both of the issues by saying the House Committee isn't a valid solicitor for DOMA & that the prop 8 people aren't because they weren't the original people who argued at the state level (the governor basically no-showed).

What would a punt on standing mean in each of these cases?

On the Prop 8 case, the appeals court ruling would set precedent in 9 states.  It was broadly decided (not just on the "because California once permitted it they can't rescind it", but on the broader equal protection grounds).   Hello SSM in Montana and Arizona, if not nationally.

On the DOMA case, there really can't logically be split in the circuits.  Either DOMA is unconstitutional, nationally, or it isn't, and all the lower court decisions on this are that it isn't constitutional.  Clearly Edie Windsor had the standing to bring the case in the first place (and won), the question is whether the congressional committee had the standing to appeal the decision.

So, punting invalidates DOMA and brings SSM to 8 more states.  A clear if not total win for the SSM advocates.


It was on NPR this morning.

The Prop 8 case can be ruled that the 9th circuit never had an actual right to hear the case due to who was a plaintiff at what level of the courts (it changed) and its gotta go all the way back down w/ the current plaintiffs.  IE see ya in 2-3 years

DOMA can be ruled that the house committee arguing for it has no legal right to be there and thus chucking it back to the district courts to find somebody who can legally make the argument since Obama/Holder won't

They said the most likely scenario if they rule is that DOMA is dead due to it being a federal law trumping state law while Prop 8 overturn will only apply to CA as all states are allowed to have variations to marriage and divorce laws.  I wanna say the guy was from Stanford Law School but don't hold me to it, they've had him on several times for various issues.
 
2013-03-26 01:58:18 PM

skilbride: I'm just going to butt in here and say that majority of what you people hear about Scalia is fear mongering from the left


There's no way you could know that.

Every single lawyer I've talked to has made withering criticisms of Scalia. And these people are not "leftists".
 
2013-03-26 01:58:42 PM

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

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411822-10391704/homophobia- ma y-reveal-denial-of-own-same-sex-attraction-study-suggests/

I already linked the study earlier. It's on Pub-Med, and was discussed in Psychology Today.

I saw that after I posted. It does stand to reason that men who are uncomfortable around gay men could be hiding something. I don't think it accounts for most of anti-gay sentiment though. I think irrational hatred is just irrational hatred sometimes. These studies seem to focus on people who are actually homophobic - that is, afraid of gay people

Yes that would be the definition of homophobia. Are there people who don't like gay people who aren't homophobic, and whose hatred of them is rational?


What about quasi-rational? I have a friend whose dad hates gays because both his sons ended up being gay, and worse, bottoms.
 
2013-03-26 01:59:01 PM

Karac: Invalidating DOMA would bring same sex marriage to a lot more than 8 states; at least it will if the involved parties are willing to spend a weekend and a couple tanks of gas. They could find the nearest state which offers full-on gay marriage, get married there, and bring their license back to their home state - where, without DOMA, it would have to be accepted under the full faith and credit clause.

Or it would as soon as it is rejected, they sue, and it's brought before a judge.


Which may provide additional basis to overturn statutes like Prop 8 in other states.  In addition to the gender equality grounds they're currently arguing, there would be discrimination against people's state of origin, since they'd be prohibiting same-sex marriages for citizens of their own state while allowing it for transplants.
 
2013-03-26 02:10:11 PM

Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex."

Rich people are also banned from panhandling and sleeping in ATM vestibules.

Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.

Does anybody know what Scalia's stance on Loving v. Virginia was? If he's on record as opposing that decision, at least he'd be consistent in his bigotry.



If he thinks Loving was wrongly decided he better not tell Clarence that as if it was still the law Clarence would not be allowed in Virginia with his wife (Clarence's not Scalia's).
 
2013-03-26 02:14:52 PM

Last Man on Earth: Karac: Invalidating DOMA would bring same sex marriage to a lot more than 8 states; at least it will if the involved parties are willing to spend a weekend and a couple tanks of gas. They could find the nearest state which offers full-on gay marriage, get married there, and bring their license back to their home state - where, without DOMA, it would have to be accepted under the full faith and credit clause.

Or it would as soon as it is rejected, they sue, and it's brought before a judge.

Which may provide additional basis to overturn statutes like Prop 8 in other states.  In addition to the gender equality grounds they're currently arguing, there would be discrimination against people's state of origin, since they'd be prohibiting same-sex marriages for citizens of their own state while allowing it for transplants.


Not as likely, age of consent varies between states among other things.  Assuming they don't just say gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as a fundamental right, they would be extremely hesitant to impose arbitrary state laws in CA on say FL cause you can pretty much kiss states rights goodbye at that point.
 
2013-03-26 02:18:58 PM
People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?
 
2013-03-26 02:19:10 PM
FTA: But Scalia pointed out that gays and lesbians could just have sex with people of the opposite sex instead.

i.imgur.com

If two lesbian women can't marry each other...

... what about two hetero women?

/was going to say "or two straight men" but that ain't gonna happen.
 
2013-03-26 02:20:34 PM

Zombalupagus: FTA: But Scalia pointed out that gays and lesbians could just have sex with people of the opposite sex instead.

[i.imgur.com image 160x160]

If two lesbian women can't marry each other...

... what about two hetero women?

/was going to say "or two straight men" but that ain't gonna happen.


Really? Ever see the great, sociopolitical commentary of our times, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry?
 
2013-03-26 02:21:26 PM

Cadderpidder: All together now - let's pretend that politicians people in Washington saying stupid things while talking out of their arse is a new thing.


There - better, everyone?
 
2013-03-26 02:22:34 PM

verbaltoxin: Zombalupagus: FTA: But Scalia pointed out that gays and lesbians could just have sex with people of the opposite sex instead.

[i.imgur.com image 160x160]

If two lesbian women can't marry each other...

... what about two hetero women?

/was going to say "or two straight men" but that ain't gonna happen.

Really? Ever see the great, sociopolitical commentary of our times, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry?


Dude, you throw Jessica Biel in the mix and you can win any argument.
 
2013-03-26 02:23:01 PM

Milo Minderbinder: People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?


because that's the first component to go.

/and what's the deal with airline food?
 
2013-03-26 02:23:23 PM

ShadowKamui: Last Man on Earth: Karac: Invalidating DOMA would bring same sex marriage to a lot more than 8 states; at least it will if the involved parties are willing to spend a weekend and a couple tanks of gas. They could find the nearest state which offers full-on gay marriage, get married there, and bring their license back to their home state - where, without DOMA, it would have to be accepted under the full faith and credit clause.

Or it would as soon as it is rejected, they sue, and it's brought before a judge.

Which may provide additional basis to overturn statutes like Prop 8 in other states.  In addition to the gender equality grounds they're currently arguing, there would be discrimination against people's state of origin, since they'd be prohibiting same-sex marriages for citizens of their own state while allowing it for transplants.

Not as likely, age of consent varies between states among other things.  Assuming they don't just say gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as a fundamental right, they would be extremely hesitant to impose arbitrary state laws in CA on say FL cause you can pretty much kiss states rights goodbye at that point.


Yes, the age of consent varies, but that's down to different laws, not legal licenses.  FF&C applies to the latter.  You don't need to register for a driver's license for every state you need to pass through, nor do you need to register for a separate marriage license to be legally married in a given state.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:01 PM

mrshowrules: 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?"


+1000000

It is earnestly to be desired.

And not just for school kids in big affluent cities, either, but everywhere.

I should live so long.
 
2013-03-26 02:31:33 PM

Last Man on Earth: ShadowKamui: Last Man on Earth: Karac: Invalidating DOMA would bring same sex marriage to a lot more than 8 states; at least it will if the involved parties are willing to spend a weekend and a couple tanks of gas. They could find the nearest state which offers full-on gay marriage, get married there, and bring their license back to their home state - where, without DOMA, it would have to be accepted under the full faith and credit clause.

Or it would as soon as it is rejected, they sue, and it's brought before a judge.

Which may provide additional basis to overturn statutes like Prop 8 in other states.  In addition to the gender equality grounds they're currently arguing, there would be discrimination against people's state of origin, since they'd be prohibiting same-sex marriages for citizens of their own state while allowing it for transplants.

Not as likely, age of consent varies between states among other things.  Assuming they don't just say gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as a fundamental right, they would be extremely hesitant to impose arbitrary state laws in CA on say FL cause you can pretty much kiss states rights goodbye at that point.

Yes, the age of consent varies, but that's down to different laws, not legal licenses.  FF&C applies to the latter.  You don't need to register for a driver's license for every state you need to pass through, nor do you need to register for a separate marriage license to be legally married in a given state.


The point was that just cause say TX has to except a NY marriage certificate as valid, it doesn't mean they have to then grant NY style certificates to their own citizens.  FF&C is only in regards to acceptance of an existing contract, not granting new ones
 
2013-03-26 02:31:48 PM

Milo Minderbinder: People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?


At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.
 
2013-03-26 02:34:11 PM
JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?
 
2013-03-26 02:36:27 PM

InmanRoshi: JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-26 02:38:12 PM

ShadowKamui: The point was that just cause say TX has to except a NY marriage certificate as valid, it doesn't mean they have to then grant NY style certificates to their own citizens. FF&C is only in regards to acceptance of an existing contract, not granting new ones


Ah, good point, I wasn't thinking about that angle.  Constitutional law and federalism aren't my chosen focus, and I missed that part.  I wonder, though, whether that would apply to an outright ban.  Would there be a distinction between simply not providing an avenue for residents to do something and explicitly prohibiting them from doing that thing?
 
2013-03-26 02:38:24 PM

Epoch_Zero: gingerjet: d23: Impeach Scalia.

For what exactly?  For having an opinion?

For being blatantly partial and prejudging cases on numerous occasions.


Having known opinions doesn't make one impartial nor does it imply prejudgement.
 
2013-03-26 02:38:32 PM

Milo Minderbinder: People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?


Because that's the part that the gay-haters can't get out of their mind. All of that hot gay sex. Ooh yeah. So dirty. So shameful. Mmm. Yeah.
 
2013-03-26 02:38:47 PM

ShadowKamui: The Prop 8 case can be ruled that the 9th circuit never had an actual right to hear the case due to who was a plaintiff at what level of the courts (it changed) and its gotta go all the way back down w/ the current plaintiffs.  IE see ya in 2-3 years


There's no question that Kristin Perry (et al) had the standing to bring it up to the District Court.  So that (broader but local) ruling would stand.  If the SCOTUS says that Hollingworth's group didn't have the standing to appeal to the Circuit, I guess they'd have to re-open the window for new appeals. Conceivably one of the more conservative California counties could claim that they are an interested substitute defendant, since they'd be forced to recognize SSM under the change. Although, in the immediate case, Perry was married in Berkeley and I doubt Alameda County wants to contest it any more than Jerry Brown has.

Nor are the Prop 8 supporters likely to do any better their second time in front of the Ninth Circuit.  They could even do worse (the Ninth could issue a broader decision that impacts all the western states).
 
2013-03-26 02:56:24 PM

InmanRoshi: JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?


Scalia did not like that comeback one bit.
 
2013-03-26 02:56:57 PM

Cataholic: Milo Minderbinder: People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?

At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.


Um, no.
 
2013-03-26 03:00:38 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Cataholic: Milo Minderbinder: People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?

At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.


Well given his name, he's probably referring to church "law"
 
2013-03-26 03:05:08 PM

ShadowKamui: Milo Minderbinder: Cataholic: Milo Minderbinder: People get married for all sorts of reasons: money, security, companionship; not just sex. Why does a marriage debate immediately focus on the sexual component?

At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.

Well given his name, he's probably referring to church "law"


You'd think that Catholics would be way more accepting of homosexuality, considering all the gay priests out there.
 
2013-03-26 03:09:25 PM

Milo Minderbinder: At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.


Mostly no.  13 states still have non-consummation in the books as specific grounds for annulment (and you can probably get an annulment in most of the rest), but the marriage is not invalid solely for non-consummation if neither party complains.
 
2013-03-26 03:23:38 PM

Lawnchair: Milo Minderbinder: At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.

Mostly no.  13 states still have non-consummation in the books as specific grounds for annulment (and you can probably get an annulment in most of the rest), but the marriage is not invalid solely for non-consummation if neither party complains.


Still no. There is a difference between an annulment and a legal basis. Do any of those 16 states require ability to complete consummation as a prerequisite? Instead, they just let people out for that reason short of divorce.

/No boner police
 
2013-03-26 03:28:17 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Lawnchair: Milo Minderbinder: At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.

Mostly no.  13 states still have non-consummation in the books as specific grounds for annulment (and you can probably get an annulment in most of the rest), but the marriage is not invalid solely for non-consummation if neither party complains.

Still no. There is a difference between an annulment and a legal basis. Do any of those 16 states require ability to complete consummation as a prerequisite? Instead, they just let people out for that reason short of divorce.

/No boner police


Wait, you mean that I really wasn't required to give the Judge a video of my wedding night?
 
2013-03-26 03:28:20 PM

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

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411822-10391704/homophobia- ma y-reveal-denial-of-own-same-sex-attraction-study-suggests/

I already linked the study earlier. It's on Pub-Med, and was discussed in Psychology Today.

I saw that after I posted. It does stand to reason that men who are uncomfortable around gay men could be hiding something. I don't think it accounts for most of anti-gay sentiment though. I think irrational hatred is just irrational hatred sometimes. These studies seem to focus on people who are actually homophobic - that is, afraid of gay people

Yes that would be the definition of homophobia. Are there people who don't like gay people who aren't homophobic, and whose hatred of them is rational?

Yes, I think there are people who just hate gay people. I don't think every homophobe is a closet case. I think the fact that people who are actually afraid of gay people - "homophobic" as opposed to just bigoted - are more likely to be repressed makes perfect sense.

Just as Rufus might be afraid of black people and doesn't want to be around them is not secretly black.



I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence to this and use myself as an example. Prior to coming out and transitioning I suppose I could have been called "homophobic" not in the hating gays way or anything like that. However, I did tend to have a lot of anxiety around other people that were out or when discussions would turn to gays/transpeople. I wasn't afraid of gays per se it was more of a fear of being outed and being exposed by saying the wrong thing or acting/doing the wrong thing.
 
2013-03-26 03:59:58 PM

codergirl42: I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence to this and use myself as an example. Prior to coming out and transitioning I suppose I could have been called "homophobic" not in the hating gays way or anything like that. However, I did tend to have a lot of anxiety around other people that were out or when discussions would turn to gays/transpeople. I wasn't afraid of gays per se it was more of a fear of being outed and being exposed by saying the wrong thing or acting/doing the wrong thing.


that's very understandable for someone coming to terms with his or her own sexuality. Whether it is because the person is in denial or has accepted the way they are and is afraid of being outed or whatever. I can see many people in that situation lashing out, perhaps irrationally (not to say you did), because of the internal conflict. I just think that there is a lot of anti-gay bigotry that is just plain old vanilla bigotry and not masking personal turmoil.
 
2013-03-26 04:01:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Wait, you mean that I really wasn't required to give the Judge a video of my wedding night?


You were neither required nor asked to do that. You also weren't asked to send videos of every encounter since then. Please stop.
 
2013-03-26 04:08:01 PM

skullkrusher: codergirl42: I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence to this and use myself as an example. Prior to coming out and transitioning I suppose I could have been called "homophobic" not in the hating gays way or anything like that. However, I did tend to have a lot of anxiety around other people that were out or when discussions would turn to gays/transpeople. I wasn't afraid of gays per se it was more of a fear of being outed and being exposed by saying the wrong thing or acting/doing the wrong thing.

that's very understandable for someone coming to terms with his or her own sexuality. Whether it is because the person is in denial or has accepted the way they are and is afraid of being outed or whatever. I can see many people in that situation lashing out, perhaps irrationally (not to say you did), because of the internal conflict. I just think that there is a lot of anti-gay bigotry that is just plain old vanilla bigotry and not masking personal turmoil.


Yeah I agree, I never lashed out and was always pro-gay, just not vocally. Having been through that experience there is a lot of anxiety and some jealousy I could easily see how others could go in the opposite direction as me and have negative reactions.
 
2013-03-26 04:10:07 PM

Brainsick: [www.apakistannews.com image 300x229]


/Not Scalia, but still apropos


Is it unusual that I wanna bang the short one... and only the short one?

/Don't remember if she's Garfunkel or Oates.  Damnit.
 
2013-03-26 04:15:36 PM

codergirl42: skullkrusher: codergirl42: I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence to this and use myself as an example. Prior to coming out and transitioning I suppose I could have been called "homophobic" not in the hating gays way or anything like that. However, I did tend to have a lot of anxiety around other people that were out or when discussions would turn to gays/transpeople. I wasn't afraid of gays per se it was more of a fear of being outed and being exposed by saying the wrong thing or acting/doing the wrong thing.

that's very understandable for someone coming to terms with his or her own sexuality. Whether it is because the person is in denial or has accepted the way they are and is afraid of being outed or whatever. I can see many people in that situation lashing out, perhaps irrationally (not to say you did), because of the internal conflict. I just think that there is a lot of anti-gay bigotry that is just plain old vanilla bigotry and not masking personal turmoil.

Yeah I agree, I never lashed out and was always pro-gay, just not vocally. Having been through that experience there is a lot of anxiety and some jealousy I could easily see how others could go in the opposite direction as me and have negative reactions.


well I'm glad you got your shiat together and are happy now :)
 
2013-03-26 04:18:46 PM

Glancing Blow: 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.


Yr fark handle would suggest otherwise.

/NTTAWWT
 
2013-03-26 05:06:41 PM
Listening to the banter on the Prop 8 case today, it's clearer than ever that justices do not decide cases on law or president, or rules or good judgement, they decide cases on pure prejudice, ideology, and well, complete BS.

Especially at the SCOTUS level, since they know no one can overrule them.
 
2013-03-26 05:21:27 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Milo Minderbinder: Lawnchair: Milo Minderbinder: At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.

Mostly no.  13 states still have non-consummation in the books as specific grounds for annulment (and you can probably get an annulment in most of the rest), but the marriage is not invalid solely for non-consummation if neither party complains.

Still no. There is a difference between an annulment and a legal basis. Do any of those 16 states require ability to complete consummation as a prerequisite? Instead, they just let people out for that reason short of divorce.

/No boner police

Wait, you mean that I really wasn't required to give the Judge a video of my wedding night?


You could, but that "enhance" thing they do on CSI is fictional.
 
2013-03-26 06:30:27 PM
Funny how Scalia a few hours ago saved you liberals the right to not have your houses sniffed by drug dogs. Which I agree with.

Sure you can bash him as the devil incarnate, but its a fact that he has found in favor of civil liberties many times.

Yeah, I support homosexual marriage and don't like the bigotry, but his argument that it should be a state issue makes sense. Its too bad the federal tax code is so farked up that it has to become a federal one.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-03-26 07:01:03 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Lawnchair: Milo Minderbinder: At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.

Um, no.

Mostly no.  13 states still have non-consummation in the books as specific grounds for annulment (and you can probably get an annulment in most of the rest), but the marriage is not invalid solely for non-consummation if neither party complains.

Still no. There is a difference between an annulment and a legal basis. Do any of those 16 states require ability to complete consummation as a prerequisite? Instead, they just let people out for that reason short of divorce.

/No boner police


Inability to consummate is grounds for annulment.  Annulment is a finding that your marriage was invalid.  Not all states adhere to the old english common law which still uses consummation as a component of inheritance and immigration laws.
 
2013-03-26 07:44:45 PM

Slutter McGee: but his argument that it should be a state issue makes sense


We had a little war over that.  Your side lost that argument.  We passed the 14th Amendment while you were away. Welcome back.

Slutter McGee: Its too bad the federal tax code is so farked up that it has to become a federal one.


Federal tax code, yes. Also federal retirement plans, federal military spousal benefits, immigration sponsorship rights, spousal privileged communication rules against forced court testimony, and several hundred other federal matters reference marriage actually.
 
2013-03-26 07:58:18 PM
This is the man whom many supreme jackholes, including some I know personally, laud as a genius of jurisprudence and a moral titan.

Fark him, and fark them.

/looking at you, legato
 
2013-03-26 08:03:23 PM

Wooly Bully: skilbride: I'm just going to butt in here and say that majority of what you people hear about Scalia is fear mongering from the left

There's no way you could know that.

Every single lawyer I've talked to has made withering criticisms of Scalia. And these people are not "leftists".


Most of the ones I know think Scalia is brilliant but wrong. He is a genius at interpreting the law to mean exactly what he wants it to mean, which takes a good deal of intelligence and a very keen knowledge of the Constitution and related documents. My Con Law professor used one of his dissents to show us how Scalia makes up his mind about a case first and then works backward to find the citations he needs to buttress his opinions.

If Scalia wasn't so mean-minded, he could easily be the conservative and originalist version of Erwin Chemerinsky and be quite respected in his field, I think. Too bad he's such a jerk.
 
2013-03-26 08:09:55 PM

Car_Ramrod: Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.


So are gender-specific bathrooms, though.  Why aren't those considered separate but equal?
 
2013-03-26 08:29:58 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 08:52:00 PM

austerity101: Car_Ramrod: Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.

So are gender-specific bathrooms, though.  Why aren't those considered separate but equal?


Not sure if trolling, but what the hell, I'll bite.  A distinction being constitutionally protected, like race or gender, doesn't mean that the state can't make any distinction at all, it just means that the rule has to survive a certain level of scrutiny.  Gender discrimination has "heightened scrutiny," which means that the state has to prove what's termed a "substantial government interest" in order to make the law acceptable.  Consider height and weight requirements to work as a firefighter:  Yes, the requirements have a discriminatory effect, since far more women won't meet those requirements than men.  However, there are definite job requirements involved with firefighting that justify the prerequisite, and thus the discriminatory effect.

Different bathrooms for different genders meet that "substantial interest" heading, due to issues of privacy, harassment risks, etc.  For that matter, you very likely won't be charged with a crime of any sort for taking a piss in the wrong bathroom, just for any untoward conduct you perform while in there, so someone is unlikely to have any standing to challenge bathrooms.  Before you ask, no you can't mandate that gay men use the women's room or lesbians the men's room, because having a sexuality check before using the bathroom would represent a fairly massive privacy intrusion.
 
2013-03-26 08:57:18 PM

austerity101: So are gender-specific bathrooms, though.  Why aren't those considered separate but equal?


You could probably get some court (say, the Ninth Circuit) to buy that, but the case would be dismissed out of every court in the nation on 'de minimis' grounds.  If Jim Crow did nothing whatsoever except prescribe separate (but always equally provided/serviced) drinking fountains, you'd have had similar results.
 
2013-03-26 09:06:10 PM

Lawnchair: the case would be dismissed out of every court in the nation on 'de minimis' grounds.  If Jim Crow did nothing whatsoever except prescribe separate (but always equally provided/serviced) drinking fountains, you'd have had similar results.


Maybe, maybe not.  The psychological impact and message of inferiority sent by separate facilities was a fairly substantial part of the reasoning in Brown.  The whole "you're not fit to use the same facilities as whites" motivation behind Jim Crow might well have been enough to give discrimination cases a visit even if drinking fountains were the only difference.  That's pure speculation, of course, but hopefully we'll never need to find out.  In any event, though, the gender-based bathrooms would still be fine, since no such discriminatory intent exests for those.
 
2013-03-26 09:11:23 PM

Slutter McGee: Funny how Scalia a few hours ago saved you liberals the right to not have your houses sniffed by drug dogs.


Wow. He saved just liberals from getting their houses searched? I don't think that's very constitutional.
 
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 »






Report