Barney Frank has called one of the most senior justices of the Supreme Court a homophobe. Justice Scalia is the core of the right wing of the court, a staunch supporter of limited constitutional protections and traditional interpretations of constitutional language and, as Frank contends, a homophobe.
Well, we can't say for sure that Scalia wouldn't sit down for dinner with a homosexual, or have a pleasant conversation about the various sock colors that match his robe.
But we can be sure that he does not support protecting gay rights and certainly feels that gay sex is a pretty immoral thing to do.
He also, by the way, doesn't feel that abortion is protected by the Constitution, nor does he feel that killing kids who commit crimes is "cruel and unusual punishment."
The sad part of this story is that Scalia is not going anywhere anytime soon.
During the election many indicated that court appointments may be the single most important issue of the next four years. Ginsburg is suffering from an aggressive cancer and Stevens is 88 years old and likely to choose to retire under a Democratic President.
But replacing those two Justices will merely keep the balance of the court as it is now: four "left," four right and one sitting in the middle (keeping in mind that left wing for a Supreme Court Justice is not the same as popular progressive politics).
We would be lucky to lose Scalia. If Obama has a chance to replace the next two oldest judges -- Scalia or Kennedy -- the balance would be tipped and the three baby conservatives -- Thomas, Alito and Roberts -- would be on their own.
Until then, we should keep dissenting.
America is a different country than Scalia thinks it is.
It's not a place interested in a dead Constitution that protects no one not contemplated by the founders over two hundred years ago. It is a country with a Black President, a female Secretary of State and a very public and close battle over what rights and freedoms "sodomites" deserve.
We must remind him he is wrong everyday until we finally are rid of him.
sorry, I think I missed your point....are you saying his actions don't match his public convictions?
so your distinction here is that he is dispassionate in his convictions to limit the freedoms of gay people? ok, if you say so.
It's mindboggling.
Anyway, if you think that Scalia is closed minded because he's typically conservative then you do a disservice to rational discourse by concluding for yourselves that there is none to be had.
If that isn't the case, if the Fourteenth Amendment really does apply, then why doesn't it apply to gay people? Scalia tries to claim that by refusing to allow discrimination against gay people, that necessarily requires a whole host of other things that have nothing to do with sexual orientation, conveniently forgetting that all of those things happen already even though same-sex marriage is forbidden. The only comparison to same-sex marriage is mixed-sex marriage and if all that other stuff isn't allowed even though mixed-sex marriage is allowed, why would same-sex marriage change that?
He has said himself that the Lawrence v. Texas case means that same-sex marriage cannot be denied. Do you really think that when the DOMA case that just got filed gets pushed up to the Supreme Court, he won't find a way to weasel out of it?
What justification is there for Scalia's position? Does the Fourteenth Amendment apply to gay people or doesn't it? If not, why not? If so, why doesn't Loving v. Virginia apply here?
Scalia is the heart of darkness. who seeks to undo of the U.S. Constitution... and cut off access to it by the average individual..
That is what the Federalist Society is all about...they are the Tories..the usurpers of our Republic..
In Federalist 78 Hamilton warns us, "When the Judiciary sides with one equal branch that is the end of our democracy and Republic!"
Scalia, Alito and the rest of the Federalists on what was once our Supreme Court are the greatest threat to our Republic itself there has ever been...!
We need a few ultra liberal candidates in order to balance.
Reagan began a policy and the Bushes continued it. They looked for young ultra-conservatives to fill judicial posts in order to make sure these judges would be there a long time and keep their hate and slanted moral view to remain in charge.
It did not matter if they had enough experience, training, or were the best for the jobs; Just that they were young and conservative. This has flooded the courts with too many conservative judges and it could be twenty or thirty years before the balance can be shifted back.
Obama needs to think now. This could be the only time that we might be able to get more liberal judges placed.
But he was Bush's toady so that made him perfect!