US Supreme Court Justice Scalia: homosexuality is similar to bestiality
175 replies, posted
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Antonin_Scalia_2010.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was confronted by a student Monday over his prior claims that homosexuality is similar to bestiality.
Speaking at Princeton University, a gay student questioned the conservative justice about a 2003 dissenting decision written by Scalia in support of anti-sodomy laws.
The student, Duncan Hosie, who identified as gay, questioned Scalia’s comparison between having a moral objection to sodomy and having a moral objection toward things like bestiality or murder. Scalia defended his comparison as an ‘effective’ form of argument.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?” Scalia asked, explaining his dissent. “It’s a reduction to the absurd … I don’t think it’s necessary but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding dryly, “I’m surprised you weren’t persuaded.”
This exchange could provide future insight on the heels of the announcement that the Supreme Court will hear two cases regarding gay marriage later this year.
The case in question, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court under which the U.S. Supreme court struck down sodomy law in Texas, and by extension in thirteen other states, by a 6-3 ruling. This case made same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.
In his dissenting opinion in that case, Scalia wrote that moral objections to sodomy should be considered as valid as moral objections to bestiality and murder:
[I]Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality”. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed”.[/I][/QUOTE]
[url]http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/justice-scalia-homosexuality-is-similar-to-bestiality/[/url]
[quote]“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?” Scalia asked, explaining his dissent.[/quote]
what?
[quote]Scalia defended his comparison as an ‘effective’ form of argument.
“I’m surprised you weren’t persuaded.”[/quote]
How these people even breathe, let alone put on clothes in the morning, is a mystery to me.
The fact they're set-for-life in the highest court of the land? That's fucking horrifying. His logic is basically: "If we can't condone x, we can't condone y." That's not even an argument. I'm quite literally baffled that he considers the equivalent of "if we ban people from having military-grade explosives, then we can ban people from having a heater in their home" a form of arguement. :v:
Poisonous thought.
But seriously, how does he propose other laws then?
"I think we should allow people to drink cola"
"But I HAVE A MORAL OBJECTION, THEREFORE ITS SHOT DOWN"
Yeah Scalia, I expect nothing less from you.
Corrupt asshole.
he needs to put some aloe lotion on his hands
no wonder he's hatin'
I always thought Supreme Court Justices were supposed to be the least corrupt and stupid people in the government.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;39056998]I always thought Supreme Court Justices were supposed to be the least corrupt and stupid people in the government.[/QUOTE]
Dude no. At least with Republican picked ones. They're picked based on their ability to choose purely on partisan lines.
[editline]1st January 2013[/editline]
Or that may only be Scalia and the old black one.
I don't respect either.
He should try plucking his eyebrows
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;39057058]I'm proud to have such an intelligent and logical human being in a position of high power in our government.
(Not really)[/QUOTE]
They really need to reform it. People shouldn't be able to serve on the bench until they fucking die.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39057074]They really need to reform it. People shouldn't be able to serve on the bench until they fucking die.[/QUOTE]
That's how the thing was set up and it has served extremely well. And its not until they die, its when they decide enough is enough.
Its a tough job, a lot of appeals reach up through the court system. What it comes down to is if they'll protect the constitutionality of the laws being passed and so far they've shown they can do it. That is their job.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39057074]They really need to reform it. People shouldn't be able to serve on the bench until they fucking die.[/QUOTE]
The whole reason they put life tenure in the first place is so they don't have to worry about re-elections and bribery from officials for favors in ruling. Say for example, they had to be re-appointed every 20 years. Someone could whaff a little incentive their way, say, getting them re-elected in exchange for ruling a certain way on a court case. While I agree that life tenure isn't always a good thing, it does relieve a bit of pressure for the court justices to rule one way or another. (thank you civics class)
Scalia is definitely one of the craziest judges in modern history, I can't comprehend how he ever got confirmed.
thumb tag that shit
It's acceptable for regular politicians to use their morals as an excuse when making decisions, sure. But as a Supreme Court Justice, you're supposed to be as impartial as possible. Honestly, I can't believe we'd have a person like him in the Supreme Court.
that picture of him terrifies me
just imagine running into him in a dark alleyway, him groping you while whispering nasty things into your ears
and rubbing the back of his hands against you
ugh
thank you OP for that massive picture of that fat ugly scumfuck
he's right though
there's nothing wrong with either
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39057558]he's right though
there's nothing wrong with either[/QUOTE]
while I agree with you entirely I [i]really[/i] don't want this thread to devolve into another bestiality argument
We seriously need to get these people out of office.
[QUOTE=xxfalconxx;39057140]The whole reason they put life tenure in the first place is so they don't have to worry about re-elections and bribery from officials for favors in ruling. Say for example, they had to be re-appointed every 20 years. Someone could whaff a little incentive their way, say, getting them re-elected in exchange for ruling a certain way on a court case. While I agree that life tenure isn't always a good thing, it does relieve a bit of pressure for the court justices to rule one way or another. (thank you civics class)[/QUOTE]
But if they're essentially guaranteed to vote one way from day one, what's the fucking point? Most major cases now are 5-4 along party lines, and nothing has changed that. It was a god damn miracle that Roberts voted in favor of the healthcare reform, and even so, he did it using a roundabout opinion.
Unfortunately, I expect the DOMA cases to be voted similarly and the Act upheld, much as I think it shouldn't be. I just hope I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Doom14;39056894]How these people even breathe, let alone put on clothes in the morning, is a mystery to me.
The fact they're set-for-life in the highest court of the land? That's fucking horrifying. His logic is basically: "If we can't condone x, we can't condone y." That's not even an argument. I'm quite literally baffled that he considers the equivalent of "if we ban people from having military-grade explosives, then we can ban people from having a heater in their home" a form of arguement. :v:[/QUOTE]
Actually that logic is what determines pretty much every case, they rely on precedent and vague interpretations of an antiquated document trying to apply it to modern times. The only good decisions are when they rule things fundamentally unfair I.E. due process cases which are just the majority saying "This is bullshit, you were mistreated- let's set a precedent with this case to ensure it never happens again (legally)".
[QUOTE=Doom14;39056894]How these people even breathe, let alone put on clothes in the morning, is a mystery to me.
The fact they're set-for-life in the highest court of the land? That's fucking horrifying. His logic is basically: "If we can't condone x, we can't condone y." That's not even an argument. I'm quite literally baffled that he considers the equivalent of "if we ban people from having military-grade explosives, then we can ban people from having a heater in their home" a form of arguement. :v:[/QUOTE]
Effective constitutional/supreme courts have to have life long judges for maximum stability and minimum corruption. It is worth the occasional asshole like Scalia. What we have to ensure is that we have smart Presidents and Senates appointing them.
[URL="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:422210"]Jon Stewart on this exact thing[/URL]
Its infuriating people like this can be in control of anything let alone the highest court in the country. When will we finally leave the dark ages of mysticism.
[QUOTE=Doom14;39056894]How these people even breathe, let alone put on clothes in the morning, is a mystery to me.
The fact they're set-for-life in the highest court of the land? That's fucking horrifying. His logic is basically: "If we can't condone x, we can't condone y." That's not even an argument. I'm quite literally baffled that he considers the equivalent of "if we ban people from having military-grade explosives, then we can ban people from having a heater in their home" a form of arguement. :v:[/QUOTE]
Hm.
Tell me what part of the constitution forbids the government from banning heaters in homes?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39057558]he's right though
there's nothing wrong with either[/QUOTE]
There's nothing wrong with raping animals?
I think you guys might be misinterpreting this I do not condone animal rape.
[QUOTE=Doom14;39056894]How these people even breathe, let alone put on clothes in the morning, is a mystery to me.
The fact they're set-for-life in the highest court of the land? That's fucking horrifying. His logic is basically: "If we can't condone x, we can't condone y." That's not even an argument. I'm quite literally baffled that he considers the equivalent of "if we ban people from having military-grade explosives, then we can ban people from having a heater in their home" a form of arguement. :v:[/QUOTE]
That line was probably just the shortest way he could find to summarize his point, he must have some other reasoning behind that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
