Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A.P. intentionally misquotes Scalia
A.P. ^

Posted on 06/26/2003 1:51:26 PM PDT by Capt. Jake

This is what the AP reports Justice Scalia as writing in dissent in the Texas sodomy case: "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." Here is what he actually wrote: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 14thammendment; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ap; associatedpress; ccrm; conservativebashing; conspiracylaws; deceit; druglaws; homosexualagenda; incestlaws; keywordsgohere; lawrencevtexas; lyingmedia; mediabias; piracylaws; privacy; prostitutionlaws; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; scalia; scotus; scotuslist; slipperyslope; sodomylaws; texassodomylaw
I have no doubt that this misquote was intentional. Watch for it to appear in all major papers tomorrow.
1 posted on 06/26/2003 1:51:26 PM PDT by Capt. Jake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
The very act of saying "nothing against homosexuals" allows them to claim a status they are not entitled to. There are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts. Those acts are immoral. Would anyone say "nothing against adulterers" or nothing against shoplifters"? To the extent that a person identifies themselves with a behavior, a person has every right to be for or against it. Better he would have said "Nothing against humanity" or "nothing against men."

But your point about the AP is noted.

2 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:18 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
A VERY good point, but your posting of it could stop them.
3 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:28 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
I've emailed the editor of my local paper already. The paper was running the story online. When the Maureen Dowd column misquoting Bush on al Qaeda first appeared in the NY Times, I alerted my paper to the misquote. Even though the Dowd column was a regular one, the editors agreed that the quote was misleading and did not run it.
4 posted on 06/26/2003 2:08:45 PM PDT by Capt. Jake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
Of course, the intent of taking that quote out of context makes him out to sound flippant and "insensitive"...akin to "some of my best friends are (name your minority)"
5 posted on 06/26/2003 2:17:22 PM PDT by larlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: larlaw
Or Seinfeldian: "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
6 posted on 06/26/2003 2:21:21 PM PDT by Capt. Jake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
Doing the right thing has never been the easy thing...I am sure all 3 of the brave disenting Justices are going to get many attacks...Thanks you for doing the right thing.
7 posted on 06/26/2003 2:21:29 PM PDT by OREALLY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
Bttt
8 posted on 06/26/2003 2:27:06 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
Do you have a link to the CORRECT quote?
9 posted on 06/26/2003 2:29:00 PM PDT by Az Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Bravo. What many miss in arguments by homosexuals is that homosexuality is defined by a sex act, not necessarily a lifestyle. What the court has done is decide in favor of a deviant, unhealthy sex act. The SCOTUS is really dizzy these days.
10 posted on 06/26/2003 2:36:44 PM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
These media weasels. I'm sure you're right that it's an intentional misquote.

Scalia wrote:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

If you take out "or any other group", which is grammatically non-essential, you get:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

So the reporter basically took the above sentence and recast it as:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals.

This has a different meaning and sounds kind of gauche (as larlaw mentioned in post #5).

I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox.

11 posted on 06/26/2003 2:40:35 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
What many miss in arguments by homosexuals is that homosexuality is defined by a sex act, not necessarily a lifestyle.

What you don't know about homosexuals is a lot.

12 posted on 06/26/2003 2:50:16 PM PDT by ItsJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
The homosexual agenda was advanced today and it wasn't through democratic means. We do not elect the Supreme Court and the legislature did not overturn the laws.

Evidence points that the men charged in Texas conspired to create the circumstance that they found themselves in. They wanted a test case and a homosexual roommate and lover of these men made the false emergency call to the police.

If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?

13 posted on 06/26/2003 2:57:50 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers."

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers being given the death penalty."

*****************************************************************

Hmmm.... according to the AP, the first line is a fair excerpt from the first.

14 posted on 06/26/2003 3:00:50 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
From the second. Whoops.
15 posted on 06/26/2003 3:01:45 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
In that case, I had better save this to foreward to the AJC and Cynthia Tucker tomorrow.
16 posted on 06/26/2003 3:16:28 PM PDT by freeangel (freeangel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
I don't understand, how was Scalia misquoted? How did the reporter twist his words?
17 posted on 06/26/2003 3:19:51 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?

Scalia says he is fine with gays advancing their agenda through legitimate democratic processes, so his dissent shows that he considers the advancement of the gay agenda through this court decision *not* to have been the result of a legitimate democratic process. He would probably feel the same way about similar decisions involving incest, drug, and prostitution laws. He would feel that the SCOTUS would be wrong in ruling against them.

18 posted on 06/26/2003 3:20:09 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Oh yeah ? Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me, says the gay in the cramped elevator.

19 posted on 06/26/2003 3:22:20 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
"I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox."

For example, I read a 600-word obituary of Lester Maddox last night. Somehow, not a single one of those 600 words was "Democrat"...

20 posted on 06/26/2003 3:22:34 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Exactly! That's the point I was trying to make in my #11, but you've done it better.
21 posted on 06/26/2003 3:24:22 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
"From the second. Whoops."

But an excellent point nonetheless.
22 posted on 06/26/2003 3:24:38 PM PDT by proud American in Canada ("We are a peaceful people. Yet we are not a fragile people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I don't understand, how was Scalia misquoted? How did the reporter twist his words?

Is the first sentence a valid shortening of the second ?

I have nothing against Jews.

I have nothing against Jews worshipping as they see fit.

23 posted on 06/26/2003 3:26:50 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Az Joe
See page 49 of the full decision at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf .
24 posted on 06/26/2003 3:49:21 PM PDT by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Okay, I can see how it changes the tone of the quote.
25 posted on 06/26/2003 3:54:39 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ItsJeff
Thank goodness!! I just had lunch.
26 posted on 06/26/2003 4:10:25 PM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
It does much more than change the tone of the quote. For example, Scalia may hold a lot of things against homosexuals, including their conduct. Who knows?
27 posted on 06/26/2003 4:18:11 PM PDT by Capt. Jake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
Thanks your post,

It

1) Got me p*ss#d off.

2) Inspired me to e-mail the editor of my local paper, The Cincinnati Enquirer the following.

"I was disappointed to see Justice Scalia's opinion poorly excerpted in an AP Wire story concerning the Texas sodomy law case that ran on your Website June 26, 2003. There is a significant difference between the excerpt that ran in the story, Justice Scalia saying he has "nothing against homosexuals.", and the actual decision. Justice Scalia wrote: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."

Given the current attempts by a variety of interest groups to use political pressure to influence appointments to the judiciary, I feel that is very important that the decisions made by our highest court are reported in their full complexity. Your article created the impression that Justice Scalia was implying something unintended by his decision.

At least, please remove the period from the quotation appearing in this article."

3) Quit lurking and register on Free Republic.

28 posted on 06/26/2003 4:49:41 PM PDT by urbanrepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Jake
My previous post should read "Thanks for your post,"
29 posted on 06/26/2003 4:52:30 PM PDT by urbanrepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urbanrepublican
You seem to have real insight on the media's impact on the American Political System.

I think you live near me. We should meet up sometime.
30 posted on 06/26/2003 5:38:46 PM PDT by Mr. Politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson