Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

8656 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
 
2013-03-26 09:15:51 AM  
How did they narrow it down?
 
2013-03-26 09:18:19 AM  
So, it's pretty unlikely he's going to support either Hollingsworth or Windsor. (It's not news, it's Fark.)
 
2013-03-26 09:18:23 AM  
I'm sure he'll say something stupid again today. Let's not all act shocked.
 
2013-03-26 09:23:59 AM  
All together now - let's pretend that politicians saying stupid things while talking out of their arse is a new thing.
 
2013-03-26 09:24:22 AM  
Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?
He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.
 
2013-03-26 09:28:20 AM  
Where was "If his dick tastes like sh*t, you mustn't acquit"?  That jurisprudential gem puts the bow on the puppy...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 09:37:32 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-26 09:38:29 AM  
I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.
 
2013-03-26 09:48:28 AM  

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


What if his impartiality is based on his reading of the law?

Impartiality has something to do with conflict of interest not with having an opinion.

/Scalia's deep thoughts: "If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?"
//He really is a sick puppy.
 
2013-03-26 09:54:00 AM  
My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.
 
2013-03-26 09:55:22 AM  

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


That makes his moral bankruptcy all the more disgusting. He hasn't been cleverly manipulated into a crazy position. His knowingly and wifully a sack of shiat.
 
2013-03-26 09:56:24 AM  
Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.
 
2013-03-26 09:57:48 AM  

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


Stupid is as stupid does.

/he's also a bigot
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 09:58:28 AM  

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


You know who else was a smart asshole?

/Seriously wondering if this guy wants to create a constitutional crisis.
 
2013-03-26 10:02:39 AM  
Tigger: He hasn't been cleverly manipulated into a crazy position. His knowingly and wifully a sack of shiat.
 
2013-03-26 10:08:04 AM  

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


Yeah... but this politician is a Supreme Court justice
 
2013-03-26 10:08:44 AM  

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


Because he's Catholic? Six of the Justices are Catholic.
 
2013-03-26 10:13:15 AM  
Will Nixon's reign never cease?
 
2013-03-26 10:19:23 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.


His arguments on gays in the military, DOMA, abortion rights, and citizens united speak otherwise.
 
2013-03-26 10:19:59 AM  
Scalia will be sucking Satan's thorny cock in hell for all eternity at least
 
2013-03-26 10:29:02 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-26 10:31:55 AM  

mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.


Yeah but it's sure taking a goddamn long time to die.
 
2013-03-26 10:38:32 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.


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.
 
2013-03-26 10:42:26 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-26 10:47:26 AM  

bdub77: mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.

Yeah but it's sure taking a goddamn long time to die.


I never wish it on anyone although I am comforted by the inevitability of it for some people.
 
2013-03-26 10:47:43 AM  
It's trolling when you go into a thread about evolution and say "Jesus did it" in order to get people to give you some attention because your dad didn't hug you enough or whatever the fark your problem is.

Actively voting to create suffering is completely different.
 
2013-03-26 10:49:02 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.


Scalia's an ass, but I articles like this misrepresent his asshattery.

Part of what folks do in the legal profession is draw and play games with analogies.  "If this is legal, why not this?  If this is illegal, why not that?" is a big part of the theory of law.

The actual back and forth brings a microscope to the thinking of a particular justice, and in fact I like the fact that I know what Scalia's thinking, why he thinks it, and how he's likely to rule.  It's a hell of a lot better than silence.  Like that Clarence Thomas douche.
 
2013-03-26 10:50:13 AM  

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

Stupid is as stupid does.

/he's also a bigot


Oh, come on, you don't even know PC LOAD LETTER's cousin.
 
2013-03-26 10:50:46 AM  

Babwa Wawa: 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.

Scalia's an ass, but I articles like this misrepresent his asshattery.

Part of what folks do in the legal profession is draw and play games with analogies.  "If this is legal, why not this?  If this is illegal, why not that?" is a big part of the theory of law.

The actual back and forth brings a microscope to the thinking of a particular justice, and in fact I like the fact that I know what Scalia's thinking, why he thinks it, and how he's likely to rule.  It's a hell of a lot better than silence.  Like that Clarence Thomas douche.


In fairness if we want to know how Thomas is going to rule we can just listen to Scalia.
 
2013-03-26 10:56:06 AM  
Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.


Which seems to point to Yahweh being down with welfare and assisting folks in need.

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

Yahweh seems to be down with helping the handicapped too.

Leviticus 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

So, apparently, lying and telling tales is not approved of, and that communities should stand together. Not just the pale people or the brown people, but all y'all's people...

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Guess wishing death and terribleness on your neighbors is out too. How many Democrats or Libertarians or Scientologist you think live in your neighborhoods?

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Gee. Love thy neighbor. Nor on the children of your people. Whuddathunkit?

And, of course, there is something about immigrants that is completely ignored by the rabid Christian nationalists...

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Does that mean we can end this ridiculousness about trying to repeal the 14th Amendment, since Leviticus was down with that sort of thing LONG before the Founding Fathers or Lincoln?

Or if we have to throw out Leviticus as being outdated, does this mean we can toss out the whole hating the gheys thing too?

You can almost hear the gears grinding and popping in the audience...

"Gay Lib. Now interestingly, here is an attempt by a hooked down and kind of persecuted minority to insist on their place rightfully, and their treatment rightfully, without it having anything to do with ethnic or religion or anything! It's really an exciting separate part of liberation. ...Sometimes we, if we're younger, we react to that in a way that we've been schooled. Then you kinda get your chops, and you get things okay and you understand and it's all right to be able to talk about that. Here's what I mean. The word "homosexual," many people who aren't in the position to having to decide this, they wonder:

"Is homosexuality... Is it normal? Is it natural? I ask you. Is it normal or natural? Is it unnatural and abnormal?"

Now those two words seem to revolve around it. Now let's look at those words for what they are...

"Natural." Hey. Means "according to nature." Is it according to nature? Well...probably not in the strictest sense because nature didn't presuppose it. Nature only gave us one set of sexual apparatus. A girl's got something for the guys, a guy's got something for the girls. As it is now, a homosexual is forced to "share" the apparatus that the opposite sex is using on this person. Certainly if nature was in command there'd have two sets of goodies. So nature was not ready. We leaped past nature again in our sociological development, way down the road ahead of nature.

Is it normal? Normal? Well what's "normal?" Well, let's see.. if you're standing in a room, stripped, and it's dark, and you're hugging a person and loving them and rubbing them up and down, and they're rubbing you, and you're rubbing together and suddenly the light goes on and it's the same sex, you've been trained to go

"AAIIIAUUGGGAIIIAEAAHHHHHHHH!"

But if felt okayy.... So maybe it was normal without being natural..."

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.

No special rights. No separate but equal. Folks simply want to be normal, and stop having folks being Nosey Nellies when it comes to what happens in their lives, in their churches, and in their bedrooms. It is time that we stop catering to the whims of some faiths over others. It's that simple. You can't imagine having to explain to your children why Jimmy has two Dads? Not my f*cking problem what you tell your kids, because MY daughter already knows that all God's chill'uns gots to dance, but they don't always do it to the same music, and so long as everyone involved are consenting adults, and are happy, that's just fine. Get over yourselves you pants besh*tting cowards. Get over yourselves.
 
2013-03-26 11:02:26 AM  
The first thing I thought of when reading the article was that "Flagpole Sitta" was an awesome song, and Harvey Danger is underrated.
 
2013-03-26 11:11:08 AM  

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


While this is true, Antonin Scalia is a sitting Supreme Court Justice, not a politician.

Thus, the frustration.
 
2013-03-26 11:13:06 AM  
Scalia is a bigot? Who knew?
 
2013-03-26 11:17:29 AM  
 "It doesn't say you can't have-you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." Later on in his dissent, Scalia argued that Americans' constitutional right to equal protection under the law wasn't violated by the Texas law for that reason. "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex."

Oh ok. Here that, lgbt farkers? Scalia is cool with you unless you do something he thinks is icky.
 
2013-03-26 11:19:01 AM  
"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home,"

Replace 'homosexual conduct' with 'black' and that'd fit in perfectly at Stormfront.

Scalia's dissent in Romer is a long lament over the supposed "special rights" being granted to people on the basis of sexual orientation.

Gays do not want special rights; they want the same rights everyone else has.  Gays do not want to be the only people allowed to enter into homosexual marriages, they'd be happy to allow 2 straight dudes to set up a sham gay marriage too.

 "It doesn't say you can't have-you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."

I seriously cannot wait for the lawyer who aks him when he chose to be straight; when did he try making out with another man and decide that that wasn't for him.
 
2013-03-26 11:20:13 AM  
He's just a strict literalist who believes the Constitution is a dead document.

It's just uncanny how the strict literal dead Constitution falls on the right side of today's modern partisan lines 100% of the time.
 
2013-03-26 11:20:33 AM  
But think about all the stupid things he  hasn'tsaid yet.
 
2013-03-26 11:20:44 AM  
"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.
 
2013-03-26 11:20:52 AM  
Wow, after looking at that picture I realized that "ass face" isn't necessarily a pejorative; it can be an accurate description.
 
2013-03-26 11:21:42 AM  

Karac: Scalia's dissent in Romer is a long lament over the supposed "special rights" being granted to people on the basis of sexual orientation.

Gays do not want special rights; they want the same rights everyone else has.  Gays do not want to be the only people allowed to enter into homosexual marriages, they'd be happy to allow 2 straight dudes to set up a sham gay marriage too.


Did you not learn anything from "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"? No one wants that.
 
2013-03-26 11:21:54 AM  

InmanRoshi: He's just a strict literalist who believes the Constitution is a dead document.

It's just uncanny how the strict literal dead Constitution falls on the right side of today's modern partisan lines 100% of the time.


Ignorance under the guise of intellectualism.

"But he's a super smart duder!"
 
2013-03-26 11:24:01 AM  
A lot of straw in that article.
 
2013-03-26 11:25:13 AM  
Supreme Court Justices say the darndest things.

/With the dowhop diddly doo shlappah clappah maffah whoogly a shing shong shamma lamma
 
2013-03-26 11:25:29 AM  

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....
 
2013-03-26 11:25:48 AM  

abb3w: So, it's pretty unlikely he's going to support either Hollingsworth or Windsor. (It's not news, it's Fark.)


But don't worry.  With some selective quote mining and interpretation, he will be able to find justification.   Remember, it's not his opinion he puts on paper.  He's merely beholden to the original intent of those founders who happen to share his opinion.
 
2013-03-26 11:26:12 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-26 11:26:15 AM  
Remind me again why we have a dinosaur no the supreme court?
 
2013-03-26 11:26:33 AM  

JerseyTim: I'm sure he'll say something stupid again today. Let's not all act shocked.


How about if a third of us act shocked, a third of us ACT shocked and a third of us act incredulously smug because we "called it"?
 
2013-03-26 11:27:45 AM  
Meh, typical christian. The vast majority of those twats think the same thing.
 
2013-03-26 11:28:15 AM  

mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.


It's comforting to know that Scalia, and all those other neofascist subhumans of his ilk will end up as dust, as we all will.

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.
 
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?
 
2013-03-26 12:39:27 PM  

gingerjet: d23: Impeach Scalia.

For what exactly?  For having an opinion?


For being blatantly partial and prejudging cases on numerous occasions.
 
2013-03-26 12:39:34 PM  

gingerjet: d23: Impeach Scalia.

For what exactly?  For having an opinion?


Maybe if you had, I don't know, read the thread, you'd have had the answer to this already.
 
2013-03-26 12:39:47 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


I am not sure what he's referring to when he says "show up" but isn't showing up for something showing effort and commitment?
 
2013-03-26 12:44:55 PM  
Sounds like an "activist" judge to me
 
2013-03-26 12:45:42 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-26 12:46:58 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-26 12:47:28 PM  

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


Supreme Court Justices are politicians?
 
2013-03-26 12:47:54 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-26 12:49:57 PM  

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.


Yup.
 
2013-03-26 12:51:03 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.


Obviously not Thomas Jefferson, since Jefferson loathed the potential of   corporations to influence a democratic government.
 
2013-03-26 12:51:51 PM  

Rapmaster2000: 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 for purposes of PROCREATION ONLY.

Just study it out like Justice Scalia did.  Study it out.


Now with extra fundieness.
 
2013-03-26 12:52:14 PM  

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.


I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?
 
2013-03-26 12:52:19 PM  

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


So am I. That doesn't mean you would ever want to find yourself trapped in a stalled elevator with me.
 
2013-03-26 12:52:35 PM  

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.


It's a fear boner!

thumbnails.hulu.com
 
2013-03-26 12:53:11 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.


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).
 
2013-03-26 12:54:23 PM  
As David Rakoff wrote, the only people who seem preternaturally interested in anal sex are old political conservatives.
 
2013-03-26 12:55:22 PM  

skozlaw: 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.

I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?


Here's the study, and here's an article from Psychology Today. My ballpark guess it's a study that shows correlation.

Abstract:

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
 
2013-03-26 12:56:59 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.

I had never considered this blatantly obvious concept before.  I had always looked at it as 'How does the marriage of any two or more other individuals impact my marriage (regardless of sex)?'  I had never considered the gender discrimination as well.
 
2013-03-26 12:57:12 PM  
www.apakistannews.com


/Not Scalia, but still apropos
 
2013-03-26 12:57:32 PM  

skozlaw: I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.


Except those studies compared their erectile latency to that when shown heterosexual or lesbian porn, and they got the hardest fastest when watching gay sex. GAY. SEX.
 
2013-03-26 12:58:52 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.


I'm usually against useless gestures that allow people to feel like they're doing something when they could have actually done something, but wearing something to show support of gay rights is one of those rare occasions where donning a different color might actually do some good. I mean, wearing pink to show you support breast cancer research is pointless--who honestly thought that you  didn't already support that? But someone who hasn't come out as gay yet is on the defensive; in order to protect themselves, they've learned to assume that someone  won't be okay with them being gay unless they have a solid indication otherwise. Showing support like this might come as a surprise or a relief and make it easier to come out later.

Your perspective is likely different if you live and work in an environment with a lot of people who are already out, but I work at a college, where students may have mostly figured themselves out but they're still unsure about dealing with people around them.

/Sadly, I don't own a single article of red clothing.
 
2013-03-26 01:00:16 PM  

mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.


That "last of a dying breed" has at least 3, and possibly 5 votes on the current Supreme Court. :-/

/My worthless prediction: on today's case, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas: HELL no. Roberts and Kennedy: punt on states rights grounds
//Will be hilarious to see the mental gymnastics Scalia goes through to justify carve outs to the Full Faith and Credit clause
///Slashies come in threes.  Scalia thinks this is as horrible as murder
 
2013-03-26 01:00:47 PM  

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


/Not Scalia, but still apropos


Mmmmm, the Gooch.
 
2013-03-26 01:05:43 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.

That "last of a dying breed" has at least 3, and possibly 5 votes on the current Supreme Court. :-/

/My worthless prediction: on today's case, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas: HELL no. Roberts and Kennedy: punt on states rights grounds
//Will be hilarious to see the mental gymnastics Scalia goes through to justify carve outs to the Full Faith and Credit clause
///Slashies come in threes.  Scalia thinks this is as horrible as murder


It's going to come down to Roberts, then. If he sides with the liberals, it will establish Roberts as the centrist who's realized somebody has to counter-balance Scalia.
 
2013-03-26 01:06:22 PM  

PonceAlyosha: skozlaw: I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Except those studies compared their erectile latency to that when shown heterosexual or lesbian porn, and they got the hardest fastest when watching gay sex. GAY. SEX.


GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX!

/what?
//I thought we were doing a bit.
 
2013-03-26 01:06:40 PM  
Rachael Maddow said it herself after watching a Supreme Court session: Scalia is a troll. He loves riling people up, and shocking you with what he says.
 
2013-03-26 01:10:19 PM  

Forty-Two: I mean, wearing pink to show you support breast cancer research is pointless--who honestly thought that you didn't already support that?


What colour do I wear if I want to support cancer?
 
2013-03-26 01:10:47 PM  

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/
 
2013-03-26 01:10:51 PM  

Virtuoso80: Rachael Maddow said it herself after watching a Supreme Court session: Scalia is a troll. He loves riling people up, and shocking you with what he says.


It's more accurate to say that he loves playing law professor. He pushes the hypothetical questions to an extreme so that people have to take strong stances on the underlying principles.  I had lots of professors just like that.  Generally, it makes the discussion more lively and makes people address things more clearly.

/according to this thread, no matter what position I take, the gheys disagree with me.
 
2013-03-26 01:11:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Forty-Two: I mean, wearing pink to show you support breast cancer research is pointless--who honestly thought that you didn't already support that?

What colour do I wear if I want to support cancer?


Pink -- I'm pretty sure that the Komen foundation is a cancer...
 
2013-03-26 01:13:39 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-26 01:13:56 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-26 01:17:08 PM  

chapman: Virtuoso80: Rachael Maddow said it herself after watching a Supreme Court session: Scalia is a troll. He loves riling people up, and shocking you with what he says.

It's more accurate to say that he loves playing law professor. He pushes the hypothetical questions to an extreme so that people have to take strong stances on the underlying principles.  I had lots of professors just like that.  Generally, it makes the discussion more lively and makes people address things more clearly.

/according to this thread, no matter what position I take, the gheys disagree with me.


Trouble is, he's not there to educate lawyers who are arguing before the Supreme Court on lively debate. He's there to hear their arguments and make a ruling based on precedent and the Constitution. If he wants to stoke the fires of law students' minds, he should retire and go work at a law school. I realize even Ted Cruz has argued before the Court, so not everyone who walks into those chambers is an intellectual giant, but you certainly aren't there to be picked on by a justice when matters relating to the bedrock of our laws are being argued.
 
2013-03-26 01:17:30 PM  

Virtuoso80: Rachael Maddow said it herself after watching a Supreme Court session: Scalia is a troll. He loves riling people up, and shocking you with what he says.


The tough part is he hands down his decisions in the same way.
 
2013-03-26 01:17:43 PM  

skozlaw: 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.

I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?


You can control for that. They do. It would be a pretty basic experimental design question when you were submitting your proposal to the department chair or whatever.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:09 PM  

Babwa Wawa: 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.

Scalia's an ass, but I articles like this misrepresent his asshattery.

Part of what folks do in the legal profession is draw and play games with analogies.  "If this is legal, why not this?  If this is illegal, why not that?" is a big part of the theory of law.

The actual back and forth brings a microscope to the thinking of a particular justice, and in fact I like the fact that I know what Scalia's thinking, why he thinks it, and how he's likely to rule.  It's a hell of a lot better than silence.  Like that Clarence Thomas douche.



He's a boogie man for the left and while I don't agree with his originalist interpretation of the Constitution at all. It's telling that he and Bader-Ginsberg the most liberal justice on the court are very close friends, like dinner once a week and appearing together at fun raisers. So he's on the opposite end of the political spectrum from most Farkers, but he's not evil incarnate.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:22 PM  

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
 
2013-03-26 01:20:03 PM  
Does anybody have a good link to the facts of today's specific case?  How could they not have standing before SCOTUS, but did have standing before the 9th Cir.?
 
2013-03-26 01:22:47 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-26 01:23:55 PM  

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.


In all fairness, Scalia is the only justice on the court right now who cares about your individual rights when it comes to search and seizure.  So, I'll take his backhanded bigoted views on this issue and be glad there's at least one person on the court who doesn't believe in absolute government power.

See:  Kylo v United States, and more recently United States vs. Jones.
 
2013-03-26 01:25:10 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.


I was at a speech where he essentially said if it ever came up with the same situation - he'd be required to vote with Loving v Virginia because that was good law.
 
2013-03-26 01:26:42 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?


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.
 
2013-03-26 01:27:36 PM  
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.  Please read up on his decisions (all of them) before you make a case against him.  PRO-TIP:  The Supreme Court hears more than just Gay Marriage, Citizens United, and DOMA
 
2013-03-26 01:28:01 PM  

verbaltoxin: Trouble is, he's not there to educate lawyers who are arguing before the Supreme Court on lively debate. He's there to hear their arguments and make a ruling based on precedent and the Constitution. If he wants to stoke the fires of law students' minds, he should retire and go work at a law school. I realize even Ted Cruz has argued before the Court, so not everyone who walks into those chambers is an intellectual giant, but you certainly aren't there to be picked on by a justice when matters relating to the bedrock of our laws are being argued.


Having interned in a court of appeal, I think there are good reasons for his approach.  I've seen it used to great effect. He is there to test the lawyers and their arguments.  It is a perfectly valid method of argument to use extreme examples to see if people start to hedge or invent limiting principles.  When the court issues its opinion, it needs to be able to control the scope of what it decides. Comparing homosexuality to race or comparing it to polygamy are fine.  Lawyers need to explain why those things are different or similar.

Personally, I prefer the Thomas method.  Cases are so thoroughly briefed by the time that they reach the Supreme Court oral argument is less helpful.  Unless a justice truly doesn't understand an issue, or is attempting to persuade another justice, questions and oral argument will seldom be very helpful.
 
2013-03-26 01:29:03 PM  

Rwa2play: 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


They do exist! They just get, well, kinda ignored.

The pastors at the UCC church I grew up in seemed to ascribe to the 'guidebook' view.. heck, one of the UCC's mottos is "God is still speaking."

/They're also not huge fans of that "Faith, not acts", as they seem to see it as a distinction without a difference. 'To believe is to care, to care is to do.'
//Not really affiliated with the UCC anymore, but still proud of them and like to try to draw attention to them! Since their own attempts to promote themselves were banned from the airwaves, because love and tolerance is apparently WAY too farking controversial...
 
2013-03-26 01:29:18 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Does anybody have a good link to the facts of today's specific case?  How could they not have standing before SCOTUS, but did have standing before the 9th Cir.?


As I understand it, no standing would vacate 9th Cir. decision as well, and so is would go back to the district judge's original decision, who ruled against Prop. 8 even more broadly than the 9th circuit did.
 
2013-03-26 01:36:40 PM  
And, Scalia's opinion doesn't matter anyway - the vote is going to go like this:

4 liberal justices:  For striking it down.
4 conservative justices:  For leaving it alone

Tie breaker:  Anthony Kennedy (who has already authored two important gay rights decisions)

Supreme Court decision?  Bans are unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-26 01:39:13 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!:  How could they not have standing before SCOTUS, but did have standing before the 9th Cir.?


The circuit court asked the California SC whether the Prop 8 proponents would have standing to appeal in a state court (where it started out), and the California SC said yes.  That is, though, just advisory and the SCOTUS isn't bound to their opinion on standing.  Which, yes, if no one on the anti-SSM-side has standing to appeal, we go back to the District Court ruling.

Which is even more fun, because a federal district court ruling wouldn't even necessarily set a precedent that applies in all of California, though presumably Prop 8 would be invalidated statewide (particularly since no one in power supports it).
 
2013-03-26 01:44:06 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.


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.
 
2013-03-26 01:46:46 PM  

skilbride: And, Scalia's opinion doesn't matter anyway - the vote is going to go like this:

4 liberal justices:  For striking it down.
4 conservative justices:  For leaving it alone

Tie breaker:  Anthony Kennedy (who has already authored two important gay rights decisions)

Supreme Court decision?  Bans are unconstitutional.


You might be surprised.  Even if they don't decide to punt by ruling purely on the standing issue, I can easily see it winding up 5-4 against bans with Roberts in the majority and Kennedy drafting a separate dissent.  Roberts is definitely concerned with both his legacy and that of the Court.  He definitely doesn't want to be on the wrong end of this generation's Plessy, and that's informed some of his decisions before, so that might well continue.
 
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.
 
2013-03-26 09:18:07 PM  

TerminalEchoes: [img.photobucket.com image 600x402]


I guess the GED in Law is presupposed.
 
2013-03-26 09:19:21 PM  

johnnyrocket: 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.


Given Kennedy's apparent position, that's good news in this case.
 
2013-03-26 09:21:51 PM  

Lando Lincoln: 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.


Of course he saved just liberals from getting their houses searched, they are the ones without guns. You go near a republicans house for anything and you are likely to get shot to death.

//Troll On
 
2013-03-26 09:29:30 PM  

Last Man on Earth: 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.


I wasn't trolling--I was trying to show how we do allow certain kinds of discrimination to happen, arguing that not doing it would be worse somehow.  (Whether those arguments are sound or not is open for debate.)  Something being discriminatory isn't reason enough to disallow it, which is why we can't just say "Gay marriage should be legal because not to do so is discrimination on the basis of sex/gender."

However, I'm pretty sure that people get charged with crimes for using the wrong restroom--men in women's restrooms and trans people in general.

But I digress.

/for gay marriage and against gender-specific bathrooms, for the same reasons
 
2013-03-27 12:23:17 AM  
He's not stupid.

He's an asshole, and a smart one. He uses his brain quite adeptly in order to maximize the number of people he can be an asshole towards. He does this because he enjoys it, and he enjoys it because he's a giant asshole. Calling Scalia stupid is way too charitable, and also inaccurate.
.find_in_page{background-color:#ffff00 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}.findysel{background-color:#ff9632 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}
 
2013-03-27 12:25:18 AM  
...and should've previewed, as apparently Fark decided to insert random garbage into my comment.
 
2013-03-27 07:53:53 AM  
Well, Scalia is now past the halfway point for his demographic.  That means half of his white male friends are likely dead.  It also means if we didn't know he was alive and were given his birthday, we'd probably guess he was dead based on statistics.
 
2013-03-27 08:16:41 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.


Yeah that's pretty much what my lawyer friends said: he's a fundamentally dishonest asshole who uses his considerable skills to push agendas based on his religious and political prejudices, while loudly proclaiming that he's really against that sort of thing. None of them accused him of being stupid, though. Just a horrible person and Supreme Court justice.
 
Displayed 208 of 208 comments

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