Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals

[WillParkinson]

Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals

Speaking on Friday at the University of Richmond, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the concept of a "living Constitution" and said the 14th Amendment was not written with the intent of granting equal protection to ALL Americans. Just the heterosexual ones.

“The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word - liberty - nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.” “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.

Scalia made similar comments in September when he told a San Francisco law school that the Constitution offers no protection whatsoever to homosexuals or females. Gay people and women, he said, should go to their state legislatures and see if "current society wants to outlaw discrimination" based on gender or sexual orientation. In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling overturning laws against sodomy, Lawrence vs. Texas, Scalia was the most vehement dissenting vote.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/antonin-scalia-14th-amendment-should.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. Words cannot express my rage.

[ananda]

2. That man is one sick asshole.

But so is the pope and most of his bishops.

[saigon68]

81. They like little boys

[TheKentuckian]

114. The Pope doesn't have a life term to interpret the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned the Pope is a sect leader with odd hats and wizards robes.

[molly77]

122. The Family in DC sent their

people to the African Nation, Uganda, I think , to help their lawmakers come to the decision that homosexuals should be assassinated. The Family puts on the Prayer Breakfast for lawmakers and has had quite a bit of respect and power. The time has come to outlaw groups and organizations who are plainly fascist and hide under the guise of christianity.Why would they want a country in Africa to do that? Why did Hitler have such a thing about gay people having the right to breathe?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

4. Then we need a new fucking amendment, asshole.

:grr:

[marmar]

5. What a disgusting organism.

nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dembotoz]

7. what is the fraction from long ago 4/5 human?

[Kalyke]

11. 3/5s human...

[Hepburn]

12. 3/5 was the fraction. n/t

[Yupster]

32. Coincidentally it was the same 14th Amendment

that got rid of the 3/5ths rule.

[AlienGirl]

83. And that same 14th Amendment is what the teabaggers would like to repeal now...coincidence? nt

[SnakeEyes]

67. Unsure of the point here...

If the racist slave states had their way they would have been counted as full people, the south would have gained ridiculous amounts of power in the House by dominating the representation and the course of the United States would have been drastically different.

And he would argue that this was fixed in the proper way as society changed, with an amendment to the constitution.

[Deep13]

8. What about equal protection of the laws and privileges and immunities?

Sorry, Tony, but you're a dinosaur.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. Antonin Scalia should be impeached...

[Kalyke]

10. Hey Guido... the 14th Amendment may not apply to Italian-Americans, either.

Seriously, this man doesn't understand that his ancestors were shat on, too?

I hope he meets a cheese and pork tortellini with an attitude.

[Harry Monroe]

13. Can we impeach Supreme Court Justices?

Judges are supposed to be impartial. He shows his bias and prejudices everyday.

[Angry Dragon]

22. Yes, they can be impeached

By those words he just said that the 3 female justices do not belong there

[UTUSN]

14. K&R #9 for impeachment. On MANY counts. n/t

[WinkyDink]

15. It also didn't include stopping a legally-required state voting recount.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

16. Approved by the people, not by judges? How does this bigot see the

Brown v Board of Ed decision???

Fucking schmuck.

[bjobotts]

74. Appointed for life can only make me wish for one thing where he is concerned

[DumbBassRepublicans]

93. A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y....

The SOONER....
the BETTER...!!!!
:toast:

[pgodbold]

17. Profanity fails me. Just don't call her fat!

I posted about this fat fuck a few days back..

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9594311

Got flamed by the weight watchers but I'm still asking "Why don't people this revolting just fall over dead with the heart attack they so richly deserve?"

[COLGATE4]

18. Scalia is an absolute and utter disgrace to the entire legal profession

and community. His contempt for the law (save when it fits his own prejudices) is beyond abominable, and he cloaks it with a sheen of utter superiority and disdain for anyone who cannot appreciate his own brillance.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Scalia Is A Stalinist

He's clearly unamerican, clearly hates america and everything it stands for, clearly hates the Constitution, and IMO, clearly wants this country to be run as a Stalinist dictatorship where only selected people get rights.

Yep, Scalia must be a communist. (No offense to believers in communism, but calling him this would be more hurtful than anything else we could call him.)
GAC

[asjr]

20. I don't think that Scalia is human at all.

If DADT ends up in the Scotus he must recuse himself.

[Confusious]

89. Ha! That's a good one!

If DADT ends up in the Scotus he must recuse himself.

Like the POS would do any such thing.

[dave29]

21. And he gave us Bush

facepalm.

[Wind Dancer]

23. How disgusting!!!!!

I'm truly at a loss for words. :mad:

[Poll_Blind]

24. Lame Duck impeach Scalia or GTFO! n/t

PB

[jtrockville]

25. Gay people and women. Any other exclusions we should enumerate?

If he tries hard enough, maybe he can just include white males.

[JoePhilly]

26. Using his own logic, we get much stronger gun control .... here's how ...

Using his own words, only slightly modified .... my changes are in bold.

“But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word - liberty - nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Automatic weapons? Did not exist in any of the states. Machine guns? Did not exist in any of the states.” “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.

Clearly, using Scalia's own logic, the founders were only referring to single shot pistols, muskets, and other "arms" that were in existence at the time. It is wrong for Scalia to alter the meaning of their words, by expanding the meaning of the word "arms" to include weapons that did not exist at the time.

See how easy that is??

[Canuckistanian]

56. Yup. Only blunderbusses and flintlocks

That is to say, muzzle-loading, loose powder and round lead ball shot only.

Anything more would be unconstitutional.

[Ikonoklast]

116. Please show me where an 'Air Force' is part of the Constitution.

But yet, we do have one.

His logic on this is beyond faulty, his conservative personal religious beliefs are his guide on these matters, not anything to do with the law.

[Pathwalker]

28. What a terrible, horrible excuse for a human being.

He does not believe in Justice, only Just Us. He is a blight on this nation, a black robed thug who probably adores Sarah, and should really be impeached. I will never forgive Fat Tony for foisting Bush on this Nation. Never.

[Hawkeye-X]

29. Since you don't apply the Constitution for yourself

I suggest that you resign or eat a bit more grease on you, fatso.

Why aren't these assholes NOT impeached?

[aquart]

30. Only one word enters my head when I see crap like that.

CLOSET. He deeply needs to justify his personal sacrifice.

[madmom]

31. I'd like to see where in the Constitution it says corporations have the same rights as people! or

they are classified as people, however they want to word it.

[some guy]

80. Not so ironically,

that also came about via the 14th amendment.

So according to Scalia, gays aren't people, but corporations are. :eyes:

[Supersedeas]

33. the ROBERT'S Court is really showing its color--Justice Roberts has some legacy

[Swede Atlanta]

34. Disgusting

He is one sick fuck. I can only hope he continues to eat like the pig he is and suffers the early consequences. Unfortunately, he like Cheney probably has a mechanical heart and won't die from heart disease.

[niyad]

35. what a pathetic waste of skin and oxygen.

[ThoughtCriminal]

36. Silly Peasants

Civil Rights are for Corporations (and Fortune 500s are more equal than others).

:sarcasm:

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Why is that man still on that court?

He's done more than Jose Gonzalez to destroy the rights in this country. Anything with a four in in. Amendment 4, Amendment 14, he thinks he can crap on.

[reggie the dog]

38. i know gays are not happy but he will legalize weed if a case

makes it to him. how can the commerce clause be used to keep something illegal which was legal in all the states when the commerce clause was adopted???? oh wait??? didnt he USE the commerce clause to say medical cannabis is illegal??? i am confused...

[Tsiyu]

39. I would say something ugly in Italian but...

all I will say is that he is a DISGRACE to freedom-loving Italians everywhere. There are many - like my ancestors - who came here to escape Mussolini. Guess Scalia is Mussolini reincarnated?

Here's one more thing: Every gay person and woman in this nation should IMMEDIATELY become a corporation.

Then we will have more rights than even white heterosexual males!!!!

Beat that pig at his own game!

[LittleGirl]

123. +1

from this very liberal and proud grandchild of Italian immigrants.

[robinlynne]

40. can we get rid of him now?

[BzaDem]

41. Not only that -- he also believes the equal protection clause doesn't apply to gender discrimination

His view is basically that it mainly applies to race. (Even though it doesn't say race in the equal protection clause.)

But of course, he often uses it to outlaw affirmative action programs, as opposed to racially discriminatory actions.

Scalia wrote an extremely vicious dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas:

--snip--

"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. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

--snip---

It was so out there that Justice Thomas (who joined Scalia's opinion) wrote separately to say this:

--snip--

"I join JUSTICE SCALIA'S dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."

--snip--

[Zenlitened]

42. The man is grotesque in every sense of the word. - n/t

[MadMaddie]

43. And blacks were not a full person

Scalia should be removed, every speech he goes further and further with his anti-Constitutional views.

[Hissyspit]

44. Pig

But we've known that for a long time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. In principle I think he's entirely right.

I think that his (stated - I don't know how reliably he actually applies it) approach to the constitution is a much more honest and reliable one, and in an ideal world it's the one I'd like to see adopted. "How did the people who passed this law intend it to be interpreted" is a much better test than "How do I think it should be interpreted".

I'm 100% in favour of abusing the constitution to provide protection for minorities and women, but I don't think it's how it was meant to work, and I wish it wasn't necessary.

For one thing, it would be much more reliable. Looking at the ages of the current judges on the SCOTUS, a conservative majority in about 10-20 years seems very likely indeed, at which point all sorts of vital protections, including Roe vs Wade, are likely to be repealed. If they'd been put in as ammendments or legislation that would be less of a risk.

[BzaDem]

53. Scalia's interpretation has nothing to do with history (despite what he says).

He frequently applies the 14th amendment against affirmative action programs. But that is completely inconsistent with history -- the same Congress that voted on the 14th amendment also voted on the Freedman's bureau and other programs that ONLY helped African Americans.

But more generally, if the post-civil-war Congress wanted to limit Equal Protection to race, they could have done so. They certainly knew how to write the language to do so -- the 15th amendment is specifically limited to race. But the equal protection clause is not so limited at all.

Even more generally, Scalia's approach is wrong, because Constitutions are meant to be read generally to apply in future times (consistent with future values). For example, Scalia thinks the 8th amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" only applies to punishments that would have been considered cruel and unusual in the 1790s. But they didn't say "cruel and unusual only according to the values of our time." They simply said "cruel and unusual."

What if we wanted to amend the Constitution to take into account what modern society thought of "cruel and unusual?" Would we pass an amendment identical to the 8th amendment, but add "we really mean it this time?" Interpreting general documents like the Constitution within a specific past time frame makes no sense.

[quaker bill]

111. A true understanding of historical thought

narrows sharply as generations pass. No one with experience of the time survives. One can speculate from written accounts, but such accounts are only summaries and highlights, generally prepared with a bias toward what the author felt important to mention. This tends to lead to a closely circumscribed view of historical figures and their thinking. We never truly know how expansive or constrained their thoughts might have been.

Of course the second ammendment right to bear arms comes to mind. It is clear at the time of adoption that the intent was for people to be able to own their own muzzle loading flintlocks, bows and arrows, and perhaps a sword and bayonnet. They clearly did not mean semi-automatic pistols and assault weapons, as no such thing existed. Would Tony apply his principle to the second ammendment? I rather doubt it.

[14thColony]

92. A couple of problems with this view though, if you don't mind

First, the Constitution is not law - it is the framework or operating instructions for our government, to include law, and thus exists "above the law" so to speak.

Second, "how...the people who passed this (Constitution) intended it to be interpreted" is something even THEY couldn't agree on at the time.

As president, Jefferson sided with you, saying in 1801 that "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated (it)."

But in Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS, which included men who'd been involved in either the drafting or the ratification of the very same Constitution, famously opposed Jefferson's view in a ruling that brought into existence the principle of judicial review by American courts. So men who'd all been in the same room in Philadelphia walked out with very divergent views as to what they meant in the document they'd signed just a decade before!

On the other side of the same coin, ironically, Jefferson also famously said that "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched." So perhaps older Jefferson and younger Jefferson didn't even agree with each other on this issue?

[Hippo_Tron]

106. By that logic you would need a constitutional amendment for the Air Force

Article II Section I Clause I states that the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy. We don't have a whole lot of insight as to what the people writing the constitution thought about the Air Force since airplanes didn't exist in the 1700's. But we interpret that part of the constitution on our own to determine that clearly the President should be Commander in Chief of the Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and any other part of the armed forces created by Congress.

Likewise, the people who wrote the 14th amendment probably didn't have much to say about gay rights. The concept of gay rights didn't exist in the 1860's. However, they did write an amendment guaranteeing equal rights and privileges to all citizens and not one that said that these rights and privileges cannot be denied on race but it's okay to deny them based on other criteria. Certainly the fate of freed slaves was on their mind when they wrote the 14th amendment but it's entirely possible they wrote it in a manner such that it could be used to protect another minority group who might be struggling for their freedom sometime down the line.

Scalia likes to say that we should interpret the constitution in a manner that fits with the times it was written. However, it's very possible that the people who wrote the constitution knew the world would be an entirely different place 200 years from now and they wrote the constitution in a manner that is open to interpretation for that reason.

Whether that is the case or not, I can tell you that there are many brilliant lawyers who believe the constitution is a living breathing document and have objective and reliable ways of interpreting the constitution as such. Scalia has simply done a better job of boiling down his philosophy to something us lay people can understand and that is why it is so appealing to many. "If you're unsure, just check a history book to see what the framers thought" is simplistic enough to understand, but it's not necessarily right.

[COLGATE4]

131. What you' are overlooking is that in most instances when a law

is challenged constitutionally, one of the first things the courts look at when trying to decide its constitutionality is what is know as the 'legislative intent'. Legislative records of all meetings of records and information entered into the public record when considering passing the law are looked over to try and discern just WHAT the intent of the people trying to frame this legislation was. It is often the determinative factor in deciding if a law is constitutional or not. So, what you are arguing should be done is in fact now being done.

[Monk06]

46. He should be thrown off the court. He's a disgrace. The framers had no problem

with slavery either. I guess that's OK with Don Scalia too.

[Hugabear]

47. Probably shouldn't apply to Italians either

Weren't Italians subjected to a lot of discrimination back in the late 19th and early 20th century? Wonder how Scalia would feel if we went back to those days, when the thought of an Italian sitting on the SCOTUS wouldn't have sat very well with many.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

49. but he thinks it *should* apply to corporations. the logic of fascists.

[AsahinaKimi]

50. Bigot!

ba~ka. Geso! Orokana!

[Imagevision]

51. Plain and simple Scalia, a piece of sh*t...

[DumbBassRepublicans]

96. Actually....

I kind of think of him as a GIANT TURD...!!!!
:evilgrin:

[WestSeattle2]

52. Presidential elections matter.

[Maru Kitteh]

91. +1000.

[Lorien]

54. Um, automatic weapons weren't around when the constituion was adopted either

Nor was the concept of "corporate personhood", so what say we get rid of all those as well.

[WillParkinson]

59. Blashphemer!

The Constitution is a living, breathing document when it has to do with Republican wishes, just not ones for regular folks.

[yurbud]

55. so the 14th Amendment doesn,t cover gay PEOPLE but it does cover

Non-human corporations.

[shireen]

57. this jerk needs to be impeached!!!

:mad:

[Duppers]

58. impeach him already. nt

nt

[David Zephyr]

60. Some judge. His mind is made up before cases reach him and he announces it.

.

[grahamhgreen]

61. He is therefore closeted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Hey Antony if this document don't evolve

how the hell did we get the 11th Amendment, let alone the 14th? And let's not get started on the 27th, iirc

Perhaps you should read some Jefferson there.

[SnakeEyes]

69. That's Scalia's point

That the document evolves via the amendment process, that's why the framers put the process in there in the first place, that it's not supposed to change with the whims of society on a majority vote or anything easy like that.

[RainDog]

73. change on the "whims" of society? how about change b/c society becomes less stupid?

back in the late 17 and early 1800s, people didn't think women should learn about things like botany because they didn't have the mental faculties - just as they believed people of color were mentally inferior - and they believed that homosexuality was a "crime against nature."

now it is clear that women, as a gender, are no more or less ignorant than (white) men, people of color are no more or less ignorant than (white) men and nature demonstrates homosexuality is part of nature and not a crime in any way but through the stupidity of (white) men who formed laws.

However, whatever the ignorance that was held by certain persons, few would go so far as to deny that women and homosexuals are persons and therefore citizens... except, apparently, for Scalia.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Most of the thinking concerning women and homosexuals in this nation stems from religious conservatism - according to Scalia, the earth is only 6000 years old by law because so many held that view at the time the Constitution was written - any law written at that time was written when many people held that assumption.

Scalia's reasoning is idiotic.

There is no such thing as an "dead" constitution - never has been and never will be.

[Yupster]

97. You misunderstand his argument

His argument is that the Constitution should be changed through amendments.
So he would have no problem with amendments. His problem is changing the Constitution without amendments.

[BzaDem]

99. No one's talking about changing the Constitution. The Constitution does not say it shall only be

interpreted as someone in 1789 would interpret it (or the date of whatever amendment in question). "Cruel and unusual punishment" means different things in 1789 and 2010, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says they only mean "cruel and unusual" as understood in 1789 values.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. That's exactly my argument

If the framers were smart enough to come up with separation of powers and checks and balances surely they must have been smart enough to realize that the world would look a lot different in 200 years and that the country wouldn't survive if the constitution was written in such a rigid matter that it could not be re-interpreted.

[droidamus2]

118. One problem

The problem with Scalia's 'only by amendment' argument is he already shows you through his statements that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' amendment. He show's that even if you created an amendment and passed it to further the protections of the constitution if it wasn't worded perfectly in his eyes he would find some convoluted logic to say it didn't say what it really said. I used to watch this idiot (not stupid just an idiot) on a PBS show called Round Table where a group of judges, lawyers, politicians, etc would discuss different subjects. This was long before Scalia became a Supreme Court justice and even at that time on many questions Scalia seemed to have a particular belief and he would then twist the meaning so it fit his preconceived belief system. There were many times all I could do was shake my head in disbelief at how far he had to go to make things fit his way (and may I say there were many times the other panelists looked like they felt the same way). Because of this I was very surprised when he was confirmed (probably the Bork syndrome in that the Democrats had scuttled Bork's nomination so they didn't feel, politically, they could do it again).

[COLGATE4]

132. Interpreting the Constitiution is not changing it. False argument.

[Swamp Rat]

63. I hope his head falls off at an awkward moment.

:D

[MilesColtrane]

64. Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre.

[Zoeisright]

65. IMPEACH the bastard. NOW.

He's a disgrace to the human race. He shouldn't be out in public, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. God, I hate him.

[AllyCat]

66. I really wish he was the one about to retire.

How much longer do we have to put up with this hateful POS?

[sakabatou]

68. He needs to be impeached.

[emanymton]

70. Does Lead To Some Interesting Interpretations

.

Following this absolute orginalism, no room for interpretation, constitution becomes null and void.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

"... No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ..."

So only persons who were natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (September 1787) shall be eligible to the Office of President. Given no one alive today was alive in September 1787 thus no one can is eligible to the Office of President, then the Constitution is void.

Additionally, the Bill Of Rights is in for some serious rewrite trouble.

Amendment I - applies only to press that existed way back in the day, i.e. self printed hand-bills and newspapers. Telephones, radio, television, and internet have no protection.

Amendment II - applies only to arms that existed way back in the day, i.e. black powder muzzle loaders. So today's weapons can be regulated by government.

This could really be fun.

So by the Judge's approach, the Constitution stops as soon as it is signed and must be continually resigned by the people's representatives every time a new technology or new concept comes along.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

[Yupster]

100. A good point, and one I think that shows that

nothing is ever black or white.

Even the strictest constructionist would argue judges sometimes need to interpret. For instance, how does free speech apply to the new dang fangled radio newscasts? A strict constructionist would probably say a judge should treat it just like newspaper news. Which certainly wouldn't be strict construction as you point out.

On the other hand, even a living document proponent would say that there's some limit to how far a judge should go in interpreting a part of the Constitution. For instance, I would assume even the most forceful proponent of a living document would agree that if a judge interpreted the 15th Amendment (which gave freed male slaves the right to vote) to mean that every female citizen must only wear red knee length socks to be an abuse of the judge's interpreting powers even to a person who believes the judge has considerable power this way.

So, neither side is 100 % pure. It just depends on where each person draws that line.

A good example is Rowe versus Wade. The Supreme Court rulked that buried within the shodows of the 14th Amendment (that same one again) lies the right to a legal abortion. To my own view of the line, that one went far beyonds reasonable, because the 14th amendment had nothing at all to do with abortion one way or the other. In my view, the justices reached too far on that one.

We'll see how they come out on the individual mandate to buy health insurance. That's obviously a stretch. Does it stretch too far for the majority of justices? We'll see pretty soon when they rule on it.

[Zax2me]

71. WOW

[Ferret Annica]

72. IMPEACH THE SOB

I am angry beyond words at this criminal attitude.

[47of74]

75. The guy is a pig

[woo me with science]

76. K&R

I am so angry. So many stories on DU now make me angry.

[laughingliberal]

77. Horrible, fascist POS.nt

[ZombieHorde]

78. Sick. Recommended. nt

[fishwax]

79. he's disgusting

:puke:

[krabigirl]

82. OMFG

[WCGreen]

84. How in the fuck did this guy get on the Supreme Court...

[the redcoat]

85. Does this guy think he's still in fucking 1950?

More and more proof that conservatives are on and will always be on the wrong side of history.

[Stonepounder]

86. Strict Construction

If he is not a hypocrite, then he would have to also believe that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' applies only to flintlock rifles.

[thereismore]

103. Welcome to DU, and you are strictly constructively right! nt

[Major Hogwash]

87. And I don't think the 1st Amendment should apply to bigots that sit on the Supreme Court.

So there!
Checkmate, muthafucka!

You can't touch this.

[EFerrari]

88. This motherf#cker needs to be impeached.

[14thColony]

90. Astounding the irony of his position

Given that the very idea of judicial review by the Supreme Court is not a power granted or even contemplated in the Constitution, Scalia's entire argument collapses under its own failed logic.

Were it not for Marbury v. Madison of 1801 and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee of 1816, both cases of "judicial activism" via unabashed interpretation of the Constitution, Scalia wouldn't even be in a position to debate this issue as the SCOTUS would have no such say in Constitutional matters.

[Patchuli]

94. Scalia is a PIG. Period.

May the Good Lord forgive him for the horrible person he is.

[TheWatcher]

95. You know Fat Tony, when you're dead, Your Tombstone will be Yellow.

For two specific reasons.

1. You're a bloated, worthless coward.

2. There will be so much piss on it, it will have no choice but to be yellow.

Please depart this mortal coil soon.

I really need to go.

Piece Of Shit.

[Pushed To The Left]

98. This is my number 1 reason for voting for Democratic Presidents and senators: Supreme Court

Nominations!

[pnwmom]

101. Or women, according to Scalia. n/t

[MJJP21]

102. He RIGHT and WRONG

Scalia is both right and wrong. Using his analogy and examples during the time in question yes those acts were illegal and would probably not be the beneficiary of the 14th amendment.Where he is wrong is that if we take his analogy further all improvements to rights would become illegal because he doesn't think the law should change. Under Scalia it would be illegal for a person to vote who wasn't a white male holding property owner.Women would become and remain second class citizens and assume the role property. Scalia is an arguement for WHY the constitution IS a "living constitution" and why it cannot be anything but.

[indimuse]

104. are you kidding me?

knr!

[eShirl]

105. “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges alte

“The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,”

HA! Bush v. Gore ring any bells?

[abq e streeter]

108. Confirmed unanimously ...let's hear another big round of applause for bipartisanship

[jtuck004]

109. kr - How can he sit with such an obvious bias? Or has he lost all reason?

[rasputin1952]

110. Scalia is an idiot...not stupid like Thomas...

but for both of them to see the Constitution as static is absurd. It is a "living document", if it were not, we'd be sitting in the 19th Century, a place where Scalia and Thomas would both be scorned, one for being Italian, the other for being black. He can't figure this out...:wtf:

He is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and his job is to interpret it; but how can someone with such obvious bias be a part of the USSC? For This idiot to come out and publicly state what he thinks the Constitution represents is pretty disgusting.

[olegramps]

112. The basic problem with the Supreme Court is life time appointments.

The intent of the Founding Fathers that justices would not be affected by politics has been stood on its head. It is long past time to amend the Constitution so evil bastards like Thomas and Scalia can be removed.

I would suggest that their is ample cause for impeachment when they effectively appointed Bush president when they stopped the recount. The equal protect clause is a double sided sword that is not intended to provide protection of one person's rights at the expense of their opponent's rights.

[NuttyFluffers]

113. is it wrong of me to briefly imagine him smothered away by a 300 lb cyst?

i do try to keep my darker thoughts under control. i really, really do try. but every now and then some "Powers That Be" conservative jackanapes crawl out of the woodwork and unleashes intellectual diarrhea upon us all. in those moments i find it hard to maintain an eternally loving attitude to all...

it is a shameful failing, isn't it? almost a thought crime, if you will...

[malaise]

115. What a nasty piece of scum

Homosexuals and women are not citizens or human beings - rights are only for straight white men - he forgot to include non-whites and indigenous Americans

[TxVietVet]

117. Let's all hope the conservanazi f*ck dies soon then.

:toast:

[greiner3]

119. So he means;

We could outlaw Catholics by state law? Or only priests?

[Vickers]

120. Fuck that sweaty bigot. n/t

[molly77]

121. Anthony Scalia , Alito and Roberts

need to be impeached. They do not represent a judicial system in a democracy. Any judge that voted to overturn the vote in 2000 needs to go too. The Supreme Court's job is to set precedent among other things. The 2000 decision to decide the presidency in the court was a one shot deal in our winding road to Fascism.

[rurallib]

127. please don't forget Thomas

he is a total disgrace.

[Enthusiast]

124. Scum

[baldguy]

125. Scalia needs to be impeached.

A Supreme Court Justice needs to be able to understand, accept & apply to precepts of the US Constitution. And to change it you should have to come up with a damn good, ironclad reason - not just an ephemeral political one.

[TheeHazelnut]

126. According to Harry Reid, a praiseworthy supreme court justice

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/asked-to-name-supreme-court-justice-he.html

In case my intent wasn't clear in posting that, I don't agree with Reid, and think Scalia is a scumbag. It troubles me that our Democratic leadership is praising this man.

[whistler162]

128. Okay......

as long as the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Supreme Court justices.

[Renew Deal]

129. How can we not consider this unamerican?

These people are all for the constitution except when they don't disagree with it. It's unamerican horseshit.

[Overseas]

130. The 1st Amendment should not apply to corporations but that didn't stop Scalia.

This right wing judicial activist voted for multinational corporations to have the same free speech rights as individual citizens. If he's so concerned about constitutional purity, how could he grant powerful multinational corporations so much more power to spend unlimited amounts of undisclosed cash distort our political campaign process even further?

Here's a 2-page summary flier http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf

I wish my Democratic legislators had the guts to defeat the appointment of right wing judicial activists like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito to our Supreme Court. Now we really need more strong liberal judicial activists to be appointed to the court to counteract them, yet my Democrats may be too afraid of the waves of secret cash the right wing judicial activists have authorized to defeat them if they do.

[DallasNE]

133. What A Short Memory Scalia Has

Scalia found protection in the 14th Amendment for counted ballots over uncounted ballots in Bush v. Gore.

[WillParkinson]

134. Surely you jest?

After all, Mr. Scalia would never go back on his own decision.

:sarcasm:

Oh wait, that benefited a Republican. Sorry, my bad.

[disndat]

135. Scalia has lost his mind.

Are priests on trial for pedophile also not have equal protection?

[dipsydoodle]

136. Wanker

People are people.

[Dappleganger]

137. Special level in hell for people like Scalia.

[Dappleganger]

138. Special level in hell for people like Scalia.

[Desertrose]

139. Man needs to get gone. SC judge saying this?? WtF?? nt

[ShamelessHussy]

140. spoken like a true ambulance chasing lawyer. instead of keeping it simple and clear, add more rules

and language to the legal document. that will keep you busy, eh?

especially when it comes to excluding folks, they are all for that... and they wonder where they get such a bad rep from - lol

[tavalon]

141. Goddess forgive me for wishing him a coronary

I try not to but it's hard. He's just so damn deserving of some instant karma.