Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.

US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

PING

[Holden Magroin]

Thank God for Justice Scalia. If Bush decides to play ethnic politics and appoints a liberal like Alberto Gonzales, he will have lost my vote and the votes of millions of others.

[apackof2]

Printing this out for a later read, thanks for the post, I am a Scalia groupie!

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting!

Really want more Republican Senators in 2004 so we can make Justice Scalia the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That is one nomination that the Republicans in the Senate need to go to the matresses over.

We need to get rid of the activist Justices!

[JZoback]

bump

[Skywalk]

Uh, I just skimmed it and Scalia talks about anti-miscegenation laws.

He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process.

Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed.

Man, this guy loves the State.

[tomahawk]

He loves the Constitution. He is a great man.

[prognostigaator]

Scalia does not want to legitimize homosexual behavior..

They have succeeded .

[SunStar]

Oh my God, this guy's a genius...

[Steely eyed killer of the deep]

Wasn't that tiff we had in 1861 about state's rights? Sounds like another one bit the dust!

[tomahawk]

Buggery does not equal liberty. Libertine-ness maybe.

[Skywalk]

Actually, I think he is a great mind, in that we agree.

He loves the Constitution in a limited fashion. He loves "order" way too much to be considered a true constitutionalist. Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers(though not all of them, I imagine.)

[SpinyNorman]

Good for Scalia! This decision opens the door for pedophiles, beast lovers and other deviants that can now consider this precedent for their "private behaviors."

Is it just me, or do the hoards of liberals praising this decision ever consider that it is the very same court that they criticized for the 2000 election, and this decision is by the very margins that they decry in that same election? Does this mean that they must now accept President Bush as the legitimate winner of the 2000 election? They must, in order to embrace this decision. Somehow, I think liberal hypocrisy will rule the day.

[longtermmemmory]

just FYI: Does anyone know what property is? Property can be the property of ones person, the property of ones opinion and thoughts, the property of ones rights, and so on. Property does not just mean "thing".

BTW Pursuit of happiness could easily have been written as Pursuit of property. In law school the vulgar varient was life, liberty, and the pursuit of shopping.

[Skywalk]

Strange that you determine what equals liberty.

How are you DIRECTLY negatively impacted by two men having sex? And is that act any less repugnant than say, a heterosexual orgy? Should we start arresting people for anything they do when agreeing to an act?

People are either sovereign over their bodies or they are not.

[Rodsomnia]

He's almost as good as Walter Willians, but I could do without the latin. Talking about pandering to the legal culture.

[RealEstateEntrepreneur]

He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process. Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed. Man, this guy loves the State.

Skywalk, you got it. Thanks!

[longtermmemmory]

its the gore principle. It just depends on the ox.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

He is a slave to stare decisis, and supports everything which makes me despise the USSC as an atrociously lazy bunch of folks..

He could do a lot to support changing the methodology regarding cases accepted, and could advocate a shorter, clearer method of issuing opinions on cases they accept. The vast majority of cases that they reject, but which are clear injustices could be resolved with a single paragraph and citation.

Frankly, the USSC has become the legal writing venue where baby lawyers decide what gets accepted, then write 60 page opinions justifying their beliefs.