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.

(Talking Points Memo)   If you like that Federal courts are striking down same sex marriage bans, you have Justice Antonin Scalia to thank   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, federal courts, Scalia, opponents of same-sex marriage, Wisconsin, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, pro, trolls  
•       •       •

4009 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2014 at 10:18 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-07 09:54:28 AM  
Thank you Justice Scalia for not being nearly as smart as you think you are.
 
2014-06-07 10:00:03 AM  
I believe this is what's known as the law of unintended consequences
 
2014-06-07 10:21:10 AM  
What, does he want people to suck his dick for it?
 
2014-06-07 10:23:55 AM  
Hoisted by his own Petard!
 
2014-06-07 10:24:05 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: What, does he want people to suck his dick for it?


Deep down, isn't that what every conservative wants?
 
2014-06-07 10:24:07 AM  
All these judges are probably trying to provoke him into an aneurysm so that his job opens up.
 
2014-06-07 10:26:05 AM  
I think it's more a matter of Scalia, despite being something of a partisan hack, also occasionally being actually good at his job.  The bit they're 'trolling' with is just him calling things correctly in spite of his personal opinion that things should go the other way, basically competently summarizing the actual precedent the majority was setting despite being the dissent.

I doubt he's particularly offended by people quoting him when they draw the same conclusions.
 
2014-06-07 10:26:50 AM  
Given the opportunity, why do I think he'd have no problem "correcting" his previous rulings?
 
2014-06-07 10:30:12 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-07 10:37:49 AM  

Jim_Callahan: I think it's more a matter of Scalia, despite being something of a partisan hack, also occasionally being actually good at his job.  The bit they're 'trolling' with is just him calling things correctly in spite of his personal opinion that things should go the other way, basically competently summarizing the actual precedent the majority was setting despite being the dissent.

I doubt he's particularly offended by people quoting him when they draw the same conclusions.


You didn't read the opinion.
 
2014-06-07 10:43:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Jim_Callahan: I think it's more a matter of Scalia, despite being something of a partisan hack, also occasionally being actually good at his job.  The bit they're 'trolling' with is just him calling things correctly in spite of his personal opinion that things should go the other way, basically competently summarizing the actual precedent the majority was setting despite being the dissent.

I doubt he's particularly offended by people quoting him when they draw the same conclusions.

You didn't read the opinion.


fark that, it's 88 pages.
 
2014-06-07 10:49:26 AM  
In fact, you can thank Scalia for all sorts of reasons this country is going down the toilet.
 
2014-06-07 10:56:26 AM  
Scalia wouldn't understand American Jurisprudence if someone slammed the entire encyclopedia up his ass... sideways.
 
2014-06-07 10:56:55 AM  

starsrift: cameroncrazy1984: Jim_Callahan: I think it's more a matter of Scalia, despite being something of a partisan hack, also occasionally being actually good at his job.  The bit they're 'trolling' with is just him calling things correctly in spite of his personal opinion that things should go the other way, basically competently summarizing the actual precedent the majority was setting despite being the dissent.

I doubt he's particularly offended by people quoting him when they draw the same conclusions.

You didn't read the opinion.

fark that, it's 88 pages.


It's okay. Almost no one here really reads those.
 
2014-06-07 10:58:25 AM  

Nabb1: starsrift: cameroncrazy1984: Jim_Callahan: I think it's more a matter of Scalia, despite being something of a partisan hack, also occasionally being actually good at his job.  The bit they're 'trolling' with is just him calling things correctly in spite of his personal opinion that things should go the other way, basically competently summarizing the actual precedent the majority was setting despite being the dissent.

I doubt he's particularly offended by people quoting him when they draw the same conclusions.

You didn't read the opinion.

fark that, it's 88 pages.

It's okay. Almost no one here really reads those.


I'm about halfway through. It's pretty well-written. Not a boring read at all unless you hate seeing citations all over the place.
 
2014-06-07 11:14:56 AM  
Scalia's gonna take this anger out on Clarence Thomas later. In his sex dungeon.
 
2014-06-07 11:22:15 AM  
I don't think I've ever read a ruling that cited so many dissenting opinions...an interesting way to go.
 
2014-06-07 11:23:22 AM  

The Gentleman Caller: Scalia's gonna take this anger out on Clarence Thomas later. In his sex dungeon.


Yeah and just wait till Scalia hears about the court case.
 
2014-06-07 11:23:31 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-07 11:25:08 AM  
TFA doesn't load for me, highlights?
 
2014-06-07 11:26:58 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Thank you Justice Scalia for not being nearly as smart as you think you are.


eh?

Iirc, his dissent stated the framework for how this would go down. He called the shot if anything. I believe he summed it up as a matter of time before gay marriage is legal.

Sounds pretty smart to me.
 
2014-06-07 11:28:22 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You didn't read the opinion.


Not the one in TFA, no, beyond the opening 10 pages or so and the wording of the judgement.

I did read the DOMA opinions, though.

So it depends on what you mean by "the opinion".
 
2014-06-07 11:29:27 AM  

Lanadapter: TFA doesn't load for me, highlights?



As has become a running theme in court decisions overturning state bans on same-sex marriage, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia got some love when U.S. district Judge Barbara Crabb struck down Wisconsin's ban Friday.
Scalia's name is invoked 12 times in Crabb's 88-page decision, including numerous references to his now infamous dissent in the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. His dissent from the Lawrence v. Texas case, which overturned state bans on sodomy, is also cited on multiple occasions.
"However, as noted by Justice Scalia in his dissent, it is difficult to cabin the Court's reasoning to DOMA only," Crabb wrote as she concluded that the DOMA decision -- if logically extended -- requires the judiciary to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage as well.
It is the same point that Scalia made in his dissent, a point that judges in other states -- Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia and Utah -- have now referenced in their own decisions overturning or undercutting gay marriage bans.

It's a whole 4 paragraphs, just judicial trolling pretty much.
 
2014-06-07 11:36:59 AM  
The funny thing about proponents of Constitutional originalism is that somehow, the meaning the founding fathers intended always seems to amazingly seem to be pretty well congruent with their own personal beliefs.  Funny how that works.
 
2014-06-07 11:44:17 AM  
brianthedoughnut.typepad.com

"Thanks, uh, what was your name again?"

"Justice Antonin Scalia"

"Okay,  Thanks... asshole."

//my spell checker wanted to replace Scalia with Scaliness
 
2014-06-07 11:44:17 AM  

Robo Beat: The funny thing about proponents of Constitutional originalism is that somehow, the meaning the founding fathers intended always seems to amazingly seem to be pretty well congruent with their own personal beliefs.  Funny how that works.


Works that way with religious nuts too.
 
2014-06-07 11:58:15 AM  
I think I can summarize for TL;DR.

Scalia dissented the strike down of the part of DOMA saying, "If you strike this down, judges everywhere are going to have to allow them to marry!", attempting to invoke slippery-slope.

This judge said, "Wow, Scalia is right, we ARE going to have to allow them to marry!"

Ban struck down.

[HAHA.png]
 
2014-06-07 12:02:32 PM  
This is why it's so important for the GOP to take the Presidency and the Senate in 2016, we can replace those partisan hacks Ginsburg and Breyer with actual jurists, start the effort of rolling back the rolling legal disaster of "gay rights"
 
2014-06-07 12:02:50 PM  
Lawyer folks. Is it normal for judges to use dissenting opinions in crafting their ruling like what's happened with these cases?
 
2014-06-07 12:08:12 PM  
Is it just possible that Scalia is very smart and made an accurate prediction? Or that he accurately stated the obvious import of the DOMA ruling?

Citing a judicial opinion is not always trolling. It may simply be legal argument.

The schadenfreude is just a side benefit.
 
2014-06-07 12:09:53 PM  

Aarontology: Lawyer folks. Is it normal for judges to use dissenting opinions in crafting their ruling like what's happened with these cases?


Yes, especially the higher up the judicial food chain the dissent is. It's part of why dissents are written and offered alongside the ruling. They're valuable for their rhetorical weight.
 
2014-06-07 12:12:14 PM  

ckccfa: Aarontology: Lawyer folks. Is it normal for judges to use dissenting opinions in crafting their ruling like what's happened with these cases?

Yes, especially the higher up the judicial food chain the dissent is. It's part of why dissents are written and offered alongside the ruling. They're valuable for their rhetorical weight.


Cool, thanks.
 
2014-06-07 12:27:39 PM  

The Maha Rushie: This is why it's so important for the GOP to take the Presidency and the Senate in 2016, we can replace those partisan hacks Ginsburg and Breyer with actual jurists, start the effort of rolling back the rolling legal disaster of "gay rights"


What is "rolling legal disaster"?

Is that like when Scalia trips while going down a steep hill?
 
2014-06-07 12:41:29 PM  

The Maha Rushie: This is why it's so important for the GOP to take the Presidency and the Senate in 2016, we can replace those partisan hacks Ginsburg and Breyer with actual jurists, start the effort of rolling back the rolling legal disaster of "gay rights"


gays getting married has destroyed nothing as of yet and gays adopting does not have any provable harm despite the fact that we already examples of gays adopting.

Wow you're right it is a disaster!
 
2014-06-07 12:49:51 PM  

pootsie: Is it just possible that Scalia is very smart and made an accurate prediction? Or that he accurately stated the obvious import of the DOMA ruling?

Citing a judicial opinion is not always trolling. It may simply be legal argument.

The schadenfreude is just a side benefit.


Reading his dissenting opinion, he was strongly against the court extending gay marriage and laid out a mock argument that could be made for a future ruling on gay marriage using the "argle-bargle" ruling from the majority opinion.

Here's some of the rhetoric he used in the DOMA dissent.  He was really quite scathing on the majority opinion.  I suspect it isn't so much from the outcome (though I have no doubt he is against gay marriage and gays in general) but because he thought majority's opinion was trying to get to a desired outcome in a way he found legally suspect.

This said, despite the fact I liked the majority ruling, he did have some good points.  The majority did its best to vaguely invoke the 14th amendment without actually declaring gays to be a suspect or quasi-suspect class in the major gay rulings handed down by the USSC.  This is important because it would require a heightened level of review for all laws regarding gays that goes beyond the question of whether or not there is any rational (even if asinine) reason for laws that single out same sex conduct.  This legal limbo has been occurring since at least the 2003 ruling that struck down gay sodomy laws.  With the DOMA ruling last year, the other federal courts started to declare gays to be something a little less than a quasi-suspected class (e.g. national origin or child legitimacy; suspect classes are something immediately evident like race or sex) but still some kind of a non-classifiable grouping not completely spelled out by the USSC but evident by their ruling pattern.  The marriage cases since DOMA follow this reasoning and are why case after case rules in favor of gay marriage.

 Scalia also brings up the point that there were no damages to be reversed by the court in the DOMA case.  By the time the case reached the court, the Obama administration had decided that the law was constitutionally unenforceable.  Because of this he felt the court shouldn't step in and rule on the law since there was no harm to be adjudicated.  (He also felt the case shouldn't be at the court for other reasons.) By this time the House of Representatives had created it's own entity to defend the law, but there was a good question about whether or not they had standing since they weren't the enforcers-- or even representing the entire legislature.  Because of these facts, he felt the court was "hungry" to make a ruling on gay marriage.

So, Scalia, despite his heated dissent, laid out how the lower courts could rule using the nebulous rulings from the USSC on other gay cases in addition to DOMA.  He sees all of this as stemming from an overstep of the courts by a "black-robed supremacy".
 
2014-06-07 12:50:03 PM  

The Gentleman Caller: Scalia's gonna take this anger out on Clarence Thomas later. In his sex dungeon.


Yeah, I've read that fanfiction too.

/Don't judge me
 
2014-06-07 12:52:41 PM  
What a glorious legacy.
 
2014-06-07 12:54:15 PM  

The Maha Rushie: This is why it's so important for the GOP to take the Presidency and the Senate in 2016, we can replace those partisan hacks Ginsburg and Breyer with actual jurists, start the effort of rolling back the rolling legal disaster of "gay rights"


I realize this is a troll job, but what the hell.

A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.

Saying anything otherwise is not conservative. It's simply institutionalized discrimination.
 
2014-06-07 12:55:40 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The Gentleman Caller: Scalia's gonna take this anger out on Clarence Thomas later. In his sex dungeon.

Yeah, I've read that fanfiction too.

/Don't judge me


It'd have to be a pretty boring session since Thomas never makes a sound.
 
2014-06-07 12:56:01 PM  

Lanadapter: gays getting married has destroyed nothing as of yet and gays adopting does not have any provable harm despite the fact that we already examples of gays adopting.

Wow you're right it is a disaster!


psssttt... it's a troll
 
2014-06-07 12:59:40 PM  

phenn: A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.


Marriage, ideally, should just be a legal arrangement for the legal guardianship of children. Somewhere along the way perks were tacked on due to society seeing the benefit of children. Eventually others wanted those perks too.
 
2014-06-07 01:01:09 PM  

phenn: The Maha Rushie: This is why it's so important for the GOP to take the Presidency and the Senate in 2016, we can replace those partisan hacks Ginsburg and Breyer with actual jurists, start the effort of rolling back the rolling legal disaster of "gay rights"

I realize this is a troll job, but what the hell.

A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.

Saying anything otherwise is not conservative. It's simply institutionalized discrimination.


The "true" conservatives on free republic respond to you as being a libertarian.  Libertarians are not conservatives because they don't want to freeze society as it "was" in the good, moral, Christian times.  Using the government to do so is acceptable to conservatives because they are ensuring the freedom to be maximally free like they were in the past.  Libertarians, they say, like the Constitution but are in league with the devil and his anti-Christian whisperings, in violation of the idealized maximum freedoms of the past under a strictly-Christian (and therefore maximally free) worldview.

/It's hard to wrap one's head around.
 
2014-06-07 01:22:31 PM  

Mrbogey: Marriage, ideally, should just be a legal arrangement for the legal guardianship of children


That's adoption.
 
2014-06-07 01:26:02 PM  

Mrbogey: phenn: A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.

Marriage, ideally, should just be a legal arrangement for the legal guardianship of children. Somewhere along the way perks were tacked on due to society seeing the benefit of children. Eventually others wanted those perks too.


Perks? You mean like being able to live your life the way you see fit and being able to decide who you call your family? Those perks?

To me, those are very fundamental rights.
 
2014-06-07 01:28:22 PM  

Mrbogey: phenn: A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.

Marriage, ideally, should just be a legal arrangement for the legal guardianship of children. Somewhere along the way perks were tacked on due to society seeing the benefit of children. Eventually others wanted those perks too.


Marriage is about property as well.
 
2014-06-07 01:53:46 PM  

phenn: Mrbogey: phenn: A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.

Marriage, ideally, should just be a legal arrangement for the legal guardianship of children. Somewhere along the way perks were tacked on due to society seeing the benefit of children. Eventually others wanted those perks too.

Perks? You mean like being able to live your life the way you see fit and being able to decide who you call your family? Those perks?

To me, those are very fundamental rights.


Fun fact. You can call anyone you want family. And with the rollback of form I cat I inn laws you can have any form of sex you want without getting married.
 
2014-06-07 01:55:57 PM  

phenn: Mrbogey: phenn: A true conservative position would be that the government should have NO business and NO say in family matters. Which means that same-gender families should enjoy the exact same rights and liberties as 'traditional' families.

Marriage, ideally, should just be a legal arrangement for the legal guardianship of children. Somewhere along the way perks were tacked on due to society seeing the benefit of children. Eventually others wanted those perks too.

Perks? You mean like being able to live your life the way you see fit and being able to decide who you call your family? Those perks?

To me, those are very fundamental rights.


Not just to you, but to the courts as well.

Mrbogey: Fun fact. You can call anyone you want family.


Tell that to the hospital and they'll laugh in your face.
 
2014-06-07 02:01:50 PM  

Mrbogey: Fun fact. You can call anyone you want family. And with the rollback of form I cat I inn laws you can have any form of sex you want without getting married.


i can call anyone I want a spatula, that really has nothing to do with somebody's legal standing as a kitchen implement, tho.
 
2014-06-07 02:37:20 PM  
Good. Let's get this over, so that all the far-right characters can stop thinking about Jerry Falwell's red herring, realize that life and "values" around here are deteriorating mainly because the millionaires and billionaires are either owning, corrupting, or destroying what remains of our nation's government and they are using the misguided fears of the far right to do it. Now that this is out of the way, please stop sending crazy people to Congress, and please vote them out of your school boards and city councils. None of us can afford that right now.
 
2014-06-07 02:41:24 PM  

heap: Mrbogey: Fun fact. You can call anyone you want family. And with the rollback of form I cat I inn laws you can have any form of sex you want without getting married.

i can call anyone I want a spatula, that really has nothing to do with somebody's legal standing as a kitchen implement, tho.


Ann Richards said this about emigrants from other states to Texas: "And just because you have kids in Texas doesn't make them Texans, either. If your cat had kittens in the oven, you wouldn't call 'em biscuits." Meaning, of course, if you are going to say something snotty, conceited, and xenophobic, at least try to be clever about it.
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report