Justice scalia is a boss
Ex-Boyfriend
795 Posts
Some soft law professor got heated at scalia because at a legal conference the latter had said "Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly". The afformentioned soft law professor got his class to compile a 15 page dossier on scalia's life including his address, phone number, photo's of his grandkids and so.Here was scalia's response"I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any."This is sonnage on its own terms but it is especially great because it touches upon this common practice of crafting strained charges of hypocrisy or 'gotcha's' rather than step up to like a man. If he disagreed with scalia on privacy law soft prof could've just made a legal argument but he tried to be cute and got supreme sonned for his trouble.It is similar with that pageant broad who aint want the gays to get married. Instead of trying to argue with her net turds dug up some 'topless'(which didnt even have any nipples showing) shots and now she is somehow a 'hypocrite' because heads have to be flawless to have an opinion. That shit is weak and so is laserwolf for presumably riding for it.
Comments
scalia is an ornery, homophobic bully (amongst other things) whose judical philosophy is highly suspect.
some university student sonned him hardcore a couple of months ago with a tough question and his reaction is so telling:
http://abajournal.com/news/scalia_chastises_student_for_nasty_impolite_question_on_court_cameras/
"In a room filled with some of Palm Beach County's most powerful people, it took a 20-year-old political science student to throw off U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday afternoon.
Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours." Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn't happy at the question.
"Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question."
The quality of Scalia's mind revealed (from the recent FCC decision):
???We doubt, to begin with, that small-town broadcasters run a heightened risk of liability for indecent utterances. In programming that they originate, their down-home local guests probably employ vulgarity less than big-city folks; and small-town stations generally cannot afford or cannot attract foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood.???[/b]
Actually she is in trouble for a breach of contract. She had to agree to not take nude photos in order to be included in the beauty competition. Ok, so maybe the photos were taken before? You have to disclose that info. She didn't follow the rules, so she loses.
b/w
Hypocrisy is fine as long as you acknowledge the fact that you're a hypocrite.
The best sonning was when that law student asked Scalia if he sodomizes his wife. Of course, Scalia got all huffy and demanded that dude's mic get turned off and took great offense at the question, etc. He precisely proved the student's point, as Scalia had recently opined on the Lawrence v. Texas case that asking if a person is committing sodomy is perfectly acceptable question and beyond that, there should be criminal punishment if the answer is yes. Then Scalia turned around and got all pissy about being asked the same question he thinks everybody else should be asked.
Thanks for the shout out! I feel rich and famous.
As far as i'm concerned no nipples = not nude. But if you really want to see a topless shot of an opponent of gay marriage
First, this is exactly the same kind of lame gotcha shit I was talking about and which scalia has sonned. See again
"It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said."
The law student is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. If you asked someone whether they raped and killed the girl that was just found in the harbor they would very likely get 'pissy'. That, however, wouldn't have any relevance over whether it is a legitimate question to ask in, say, the course of an investigation . Neither would it make the asked party a hypocrite for thinking it was a legitimate question to ask in such an investigation.
Second, you should read scalia's dissent in the lawrence v texas case. I don't care how much you love sodomy, there is no way you can read that and not acknowledge that scalia tore the head off the majority opinion.
Here is the take away paragraph which not only sums up what was wrong with this particular decision but what is wrong with 'liberal' jurisprudence in general
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one???s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one???s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts???or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them???than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new ???constitutional right??? by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that ???later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,??? ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."
Why even read past this quote? That's all you need to know about how he feels. There is no secret homosexual agenda. To even entertain this argument past that quote is a waste of reading. He's exposed himself as a bigot. Game over.
your understanding of legal philosophy and logic in general is embarrassingly shallow.
the problem with this particular opinion of his is that it assumes that the human rights of a minority group (homosexuals) should be a matter for democratically elected representatives to decide and not for the federal government to protect. that is patently false and immoral. so homosexuals have to wait until the majority of texans are comfortable with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?
good thing scalia wasn't around during the civil rights era.
They won't rest until i'm gay.
THOSE PEOPLE lose sleep over me sleeping with my wife in my storm shelter.
If this were a sonning it would have been the Majority opinion, not the minority one.
Son, it is not for a judge to decide whether a disputed action is moral or not, only if it is legal. A body which decides whether to allow this or that on the basis of their own moral views is a council of wisemen, not a court of law.
In this case scalia has reached the conclusion that texas is within its legal rights in criminialising sodomy. His reasoning for doing so is all there in ihs dissenting opinion and I think it is sound as a nut.
because you're intelligent and realize that is better things be read in the fullest context so as to reduce the change of drawing erroneous interpretations.
Obviously not applicable in your case but it does answer your question.
are you really that dense? the problem is that the fundamental human rights of a minority group cannot be dependant upon what the majority of the electorate wants or feels it is ready for. the south would still be segregated if that were the case.
in my view, scalia's dissent was not only incorrect but totally amoral (which is to be expected from one of dick cheney's hunting partners).
finally, if his logic was so sound, then why couldn't he convince the majority on the bench that his opinion was the correct one?
Dolo using this argument to JUSTIFY Scalia's judgments and opinions almost made my head explode.
It always better to actually trouble yourself to READ something before you criticize it. A portion relevant
"Texas Penal Code Ann. ??21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to ???liberty??? under the Due Process Clause, though today???s opinion repeatedly makes that claim. Ante, at 6 (???The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice???); ante, at 13 (??? ??? These matters ??? are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment??? ???); ante, at 17 (???Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government???). The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of ???liberty,??? so long as ???due process of law??? is provided:
???No state shall ??? deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.??? Amdt. 14 (emphasis added).
Our opinions applying the doctrine known as ???substantive due process??? hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called ???heightened scrutiny??? protection???that is, rights which are ??? ???deeply rooted in this Nation???s history and tradition,??? ??? ibid. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303 (1993) (fundamental liberty interests must be ???so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental??? (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987) (same). See also Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 (1989) (???[W]e have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a ???liberty??? be ???fundamental??? ??? but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our society???); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Fourteenth Amendment protects ???those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men??? (emphasis added)).3 All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."
You reaching. You don't seriously believe that the ultimate test of a legal opinion's strength is if it is adopted by a majority of the court or not. Such a standard would make criticisms of any court decision off limits
Not surprising. Just imagine trying to fit a statement of such enormous profundity into so small a mind.
if you really want to understand the case, i suggest you read some of the commentaries that devle into the rationale of the majority. start with nan hunter's "living with lawrence". here is the abstract:
That summary only proves my point. "flexible standards replacing rigid definitions" means nothing other than the personal opinions of the justices overiding the law.
the rigid definitions in question required a degree of reformulation because they were highly suspect and excluded certain groups from protection unfairly. Bowers was overruled because it defined liberty too narrowly.
it may be hard for you to believe but law does evolve over time and the supreme court is not bound to follow previous decisions of lower courts or even itself. that doesn't necessarily mean the majority just "went with their hearts". if you want to understand their rationale(s), read the case and the commentaries.
you are way too hung up on semantics, and your view of the law and world in general seems quite parochial: i suggest you stop tuning into to fox news.
[/thread]