Scalia: 'Don't Paint Me As Anti-Gay'
Source: TPM
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Thursday that he doesn't want to be seen as "anti-gay," according to the Washington Post.
"Dont paint me as anti-gay or anti-abortion or anything else, Scalia said during an appearance with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at George Washington University, the Post reported.
Scalia also said the question of whether gays should have the right to marry or whether women should have the right to an abortion "isn't the issue," the Washington Blade reported.
"I dont have any public views on any of those things," Scalia said, according to the Blade. "The point is, who decides? Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country, or is it a matter left to the people?"
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/antonin-scalia-not-anti-gay
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Which is tantamount to a lie. I call spades spades. Don't like it, you can always resign.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)interracial marriage.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Don't paint gay marriage as "imposing" anything on anyone. It just effects the people that are actually getting married. It's not that terrible thing that your side thinks it is. You and your ilk aren't required to do a damn thing.
The guy in front of me in line at Subway isn't imposing his turkey sandwich on me. He's making a different choice that I wouldn't make. As long as he doesn't have a problem with my meatball marinara, we're cool.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)aggiesal
(8,915 posts)just don't paint me that way!
charliea
(260 posts)No need for me to do any painting. The mere fact that you seem to think that restricting freedom is an inherent right of government, for no discernible reason except religious dogma, is more than enough.
How's the cilice feeling these days, Justice Scalia?
brooklynite
(94,577 posts)android fan
(214 posts)Aren't you due to eat a shitload of lard?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)You are also anti-healthcare for the 47%ers we well.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)The day he retires I'm opening a bottle of champagne and drinking it by myself.
LiberalFighter
(50,931 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts)Paladin
(28,262 posts)But I would never credit him with that much introspective ability.
Dr. Xavier
(278 posts)wonder what he's running for?
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Auggie
(31,171 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)supposed to be treated equally and it doesnt they are only equal as long as they arent gay.
William769
(55,147 posts)gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)that shithead was mentally born in a toilet bowl and has never been able to climb out!
muntrv
(14,505 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I'll just dump those whole damned anti-gay can of paint on you.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)the envy of the world. Now, rights aren't the issue?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,977 posts)SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Why didn't he "leave it to the people" to decide whether or not corporations are people? Why didn't he leave it to the people to decide if money is speech? Because the right to free speech is a fundamental right under the Constitution that cannot be left to the whims of the public. So he felt compelled to define it to protect corporations, throwing out years of precedent. His decision was dead wrong, but no one is arguing he had no power to do it.
So too is equal treatment under the law a fundamental right.
The fact that Scalia thinks corporations' right to spend their cash on politicians as they see fit is a fundamental right that must be protected by the Supreme Court, but a gay individual's right to marry is not and can be circumscribed by the majority in a state, proves his animus toward gay individuals.
Bugenhagen
(151 posts)Anyone who gets to the position he has attained and uses his power to make the world worse is going to need lots of acts of contrition. Honestly, I doubt it is possible since he's not even found the grace to repent.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Who should decide the norms of society? Congress or the Supreme Court? Do we want nine UNELECTED, UNREMOVABLE people deciding what are the NORMS for Society, or do we want people subject to vote every two years to decide what are the NORMS?
Is it better for unelected Judges to decide what society should permit or should that be up to elected officials who have to justify they vote on such items every two years?
The US Supreme Court has always preferred to decide cases based on laws passed by Congress as oppose to the US Constitution, for if Congress does NOT support the decision, Congress can just change the law. If the Court decides a Constitutional issue that Congress dislikes, Congress can only make it by constitutional amendment.
Lets get off the issue of gay rights, abortion etc, lets look up the decision that Corporation are people. Scalia supported that decision and it is a decision I suspect most American reject.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
Should these issues be decides by the Supreme Court OR Congress? In my opinion, Congress and the State Legislatures NOT the Courts. Scalia's problem is he agrees with me as to most items except the items he wants Congress NOT to have a say in (i.e. Corporate Power).
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)on the court.
Should the constitution be changed to give the people
a national referendum right, he would be the first one
to scream and protest.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)with his hideous attitude. We don't have to do anything but observe the truth.
byronius
(7,395 posts)Fucking demon.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Skittles
(153,160 posts)better?