LGBT News Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling

There job is to decide whether things fall in line with the constitution not force their personal morals on the rest of the country. There is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution that makes LGBT marriage illegal.

 

Scalia's a moron, he should just resign already so Obama can put another Democratic on the panel.

 

ain't nobody banning divorces

On the plus side, this comment makes me smile:

 

Why the fuck was he even appointed? If anyone's under qualified it's him.

Seriously - his whole "interpreting the constitution the way the founding fathers would" is some bullshit. I'm not living in a world with 2013 technology governed by a 1789 way of thinking. We'd still be using gallows.

 

some comments were about some troubles his ethnic would have if traditional values/public opinion were enforced, and something like "by his logic, interracial marriage should be banned because public opinion"

oh yeah, is he really catholic?

 

No, he's an idiot. He's a really weak juror.

The problem is that Scalia doesn't understand his role as a juror, and he doesn't really understand the function of law either. Law has moral content, and he seems to have difficulty with the fact that law has moral content, and he's supposed to adjudicate on the internal consistency of it.

Unfortunately, he seems to render a lot of decisions (or dissents when he's in the pouty minority) that indicate he basically thinks Congress can do pretty much whatever the hell it wants. He's a direct democrat.

 

I believe he's a republican (appointed by Regan in 1986).

My guess on why he made those statements is pretty simply. He knows that constitutionally, same-sex marriage should be protected, but it goes against his personal (read moral) beliefs, which explains the typical projection when he claims that judges shouldn't be making moral decision. His goal, rather than outright say that he's against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, is to claim that those decisions don't belong to the court so he can cover his ass.

I don't think he really believes Congress should be making those decisions per se, that's just his cope out.

 

When I say "direct democrat," I'm not talking about party Democrats. I'm talking about the belief in direct democracy--the belief that governance should be by majority rule with very few, if any, checks against a democratic majority. Direct democracy is bad because it lets majorities completely run over the minority, which has had catastrophic consequences because Americans are extremely vicious and nasty. (See all of our history.)

 

I'm aware of that. He wouldn't be appointed if he didn't have the necessary qualifications - I do believe common sense is a qualification as well (or it ought to be), and practicing Originalism is just so idiotic to me it stuns me he was ever appointed, much less approved.

 

My bad, used to debating against conservatives

I don't think he's a "direct democrat" as you define it however. I really see his excuse as an attempt to shift the debate elsewhere to cover his ass. He's in a position where he's damned by conservatives and religious organizations (likely including his own church) if he votes against Prop 8/DOMA, and damned if he votes in favor of them from LGBT and Allies, which is between 45-55% of the population according to polls.

Looks like a cop out to me.

 

Honestly, I can kind of see his point. Ideally, in cases like DOMA, if there really is concern about popular opinion or current understanding about human rights having changed and the law needing to be overturned, Congress would have a vote about it.
OK, it's more difficult than that, but even including committees, review boards, discussions etc, you would expect this to be dealt with by people in congress taking a long hard look at what their constituents think, and then voting on it.

However, that's not what happened. Despite pronouncements about being in favour of DOMA repeal, the Dems haven't done one thing to table a motion. Instead, Obama chose the passive route of not defending in cases pertaining to DOMA, letting it rise up through the courts, and arrive at SCOTUS. There, hopefully, to be rendered unconstitutional.

The reason for this is quite clear: it would cost a lot of political capital and maneuvering to get it though, which the Dems rather spend on other laws. And it gives excellent deniability. Depending on what the ruling and the popular reaction is, Obama can either take the credit for skillfully maneuvering, or point to SCOTUS and say "that's their ruling folks, I can't influence it!"

If I were a supreme judge, I'd feel rather used, honestly. Judicial review should be used for egregious cases of infraction, not for the times Congress could do its job but is afraid to get its feet wet.


That said, I do think that at least on the DOMA end, it is a fairly clear-cut case of constitutional review. On a federal level, contracts from the state level should be upheld. Marriage, as a state that gives benefits and obligations, is at its core a contract. Thus not upholding a marriage on the federal level is blatant overstretch.

 

I don't think keeping the Founding Fathers in mind is a bad way of interpreting the constitution. And sometimes that even works in ways you wouldn't think. For instance, on the second amendment, the court ruled in an '08 case (I think) involving a DC man about DC's gun laws. While they found DC's gun laws unconstitutional, they also rules that govt has the power to ban certain armaments since the FF could not have foreseen such weaponry.

In this case, I'm really not sure what's going to happen, so I should probably read some possible outcomes XD

 

That's very true, and you are correct. I just believe that for the majority of the constitution, you have to remember what the founding fathers intended, and yet remember that you are ruling for a different, more advanced society. Scalia doesn't do that. He rules in how he thinks the founding fathers would have thought.

I'm just saying. The very idea of ruling as if it were 1789 is worrisome.

 

I should point out that although Scalia's words sound nice, and almost reasonable, he doesn't actually act in the way that he claims. He has never had an issue with applying more "modern" interpretations of the Constitution when it suited his agenda. He just uses this excuse to screw over minority groups and advance his social agenda.

Case in point, look at where he stood on the Citizens United case.