Antonin Scalia | News | Supreme Court

Antonin Scalia Talks Sodomy

ScaliaAt an Ohio State lecture on interpreting the Constitution:

 “My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect but to show that it beats the other available alternatives. Did any provision of the Constitution guarantee a right to abortion? No one thought so for almost two centuries after the founding. Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy? Same answer.”

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. This of course are the same documents/writers that said black people were only 3/5 human ... and women couldn't vote... that stood for 100 years or so, no? So I ask Justice Scalia, what's your point?

    Posted by: Rucka | Nov 20, 2009 12:59:34 PM

  2. hoping there's a DNR (do not resuscitate) directive on Scalia's head.

    Posted by: tyto | Nov 20, 2009 1:07:07 PM

  3. A very evil Catholic Christianist.
    End of story.

    Posted by: Tony X | Nov 20, 2009 1:11:30 PM

  4. Scalia is cruder and more vicious than other justices. But a majority of them would vote with him against marriage equality. And so it will be for many years to come.

    Posted by: K in VA | Nov 20, 2009 1:14:56 PM

  5. Oh, but there is some evolution; note how Scalia evokes a distinction for sodomy. Now the constitution did not make provisions for "homosexual sodomy," while provisions for heterosexual sodomy have somehow made it through to Scalia's interpretation of the document.

    Posted by: MackMichael | Nov 20, 2009 1:16:11 PM

  6. This fat fuck needs to hurry up and die.

    Posted by: KFLO | Nov 20, 2009 1:16:34 PM

  7. Interesting point, MACKMICHAEL. I was wondering about that specific term "homosexual sodomy" also.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 20, 2009 1:21:20 PM

  8. He has nine children so I guess his wife didn't take it up the ass much.

    Posted by: homer | Nov 20, 2009 1:23:04 PM

  9. Scalia is scum. I agree with Rucka, but Scalia would argue that the constitution today has been amended to prohibit slavery and give the vote to women, and would further argue that the constitution should be amended to prevent the enactment of laws that criminalize "homosexual" sodomy, not be interpreted such that it cannot be made illegal. However, what Scalia wants is not possible politically and it never was. The political will to amend to exclude slavery took a civil war to produce.

    What concerns me about the Supremes is the right wing reactionary catholicism that 5 of them practice.

    Posted by: Willig | Nov 20, 2009 1:27:02 PM

  10. Just a bit of a qualification to Rucka's point. There is no doubt that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were racist and believed in black inferiority. However, the Three-Fifths Clause did not define black people as three-fifths human beings. The number of representatives each state had was based on the state's population. The framers argued that, in calculating this number, black people should count as three-fifths of a citizen. While one could speculatively assert that this was tantamount to the framers saying that black people were not full human beings, the actual wording of the compromise does not explicitly say so.

    Posted by: Peter | Nov 20, 2009 1:29:04 PM

  11. Did any provision in the Constitution say that whites and blacks can drink from the same fountain? Not at all!

    Posted by: Mike | Nov 20, 2009 1:35:34 PM

  12. Exactly, Rucka.

    I'm tired of the constant deification of 'the founding fathers' and the obsession to restore America to its moment of conception.

    Its goddamn insulting that people this stupid are on the supreme court.

    For hundreds of years the constitution didn't guarantee SHIT to anyone who wasn't a straight white christian male. So why exactly am I supposed to give a fuck about this right wing 1700s fetish? Let them play with teabags and reenact civil war battles, the rest of us can focus on the 21st century.

    Posted by: Wes | Nov 20, 2009 1:35:54 PM

  13. And this man is still alive, why? Are there no crazy militant liberals out there?

    The funny thing about Scalia is that he is a strict constructionist until it doesn't suit him anymore.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 20, 2009 1:39:55 PM

  14. I may not agree with him, but he's clearly a hell of a lot smarter than most of the people posting here. Knock off the death wishes, it's immature and disgusting.

    Posted by: DR | Nov 20, 2009 1:53:03 PM

  15. Scalia is a good example of why Supreme Court justices should have term limits. I say let 'em serve for 12 years before they have to step down. That would prevent dinosaurs like Scalia and Thomas from completely bogging down the system for a generation.

    Posted by: peterparker | Nov 20, 2009 1:54:06 PM

  16. Constipated windbag.

    Posted by: Perry | Nov 20, 2009 1:54:15 PM

  17. The Constitution is a framework to protect and provide freedom... it doesn't mention a lot of particulars. This "cherry-picking" approach to Constitution isn't far off from the "cherry-picking" approach many apply to religious practice as well.

    It's hard to fathom how the highest court, designed to protect us from religious influence has become itself so slanted by the same...

    Posted by: stephen | Nov 20, 2009 1:56:28 PM

  18. "Knock off the death wishes, it's immature and disgusting."

    OK, well, what about a debilitating stroke then? (hee hee hee hee)

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 20, 2009 2:03:40 PM

  19. What a strange argument to make. The Constitution is a brief document that doesn't cover countless areas related to people's bodies and/or modern life. Examples include euthanasia, capital punishment, and immigration. Because the Constitution doesn't cover the Internet, does that mean we don't have a right to use it? Scalia is taking a ludicrous approach to frame his argument.

    I've never understood people who view the Constitution as a fixed document that shouldn't change with time. Given the challenges that went into its writing, I doubt most of the founding fathers would want or expect us to follow it to the letter 225 years later.

    I'd also guess that Scalia doesn't consider any heterosexual activity to be sodomy. Maybe aside from rape, though who knows---rape isn't covered by the Constitution either.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 20, 2009 2:05:50 PM

  20. DERRICK, my first chuckle of the day.

    Scalia is living proof only the good die young, a walking advertisement for birth control and a lesson to parents everywhere, do not drop your children on their heads on a regular basis.

    I wonder what the Constitution says about Churches covering up and enabling the rape of children?

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 20, 2009 2:09:25 PM

  21. I really dislike Scalia and certainly despise his views on these and other issues. But to take a step back... it amazes me that any Supreme Court Justice, but Scalia especially, can be out on the lecture circuit exposing his biases and utter lack of openmindedness on these issues. When these issues come before the Court, you can easily assume how he will judge them regardless of the facts and arguments that will be presented. He's basically saying he cannot be convinced to see it any other way. During confirmation hearings, all the nominees are quick to say they can't comment on an issue that might come before the court but Scalia does it all the time now that he is on the bench. In my opinion it is just wrong - and beneath the institution - for him to be out there bashing groups and issues that may very come before him to judge. His views are clearly expressed in the context of his written decisions which is where they should be. He should follow the model of some other Justices who give lectures and speak generically about the law, process, and the Court as an institution. In a way it is satisfying to see Scalia bring scorn upon himself, but I think it is more important to uphold the dignity of the Court since he is appointed to it for life.

    Posted by: arundel | Nov 20, 2009 2:18:40 PM

  22. If Scalia wants to go down that road, I defy him to find the word "marriage" in the Constitution - there's no explicit provision for ANYONE to get married based upon his logic. Or how about my favorite (NOT!) that corporations are considered as people for free speech etc rights? That one was made up out of whole cloth, but it suits his world view so it's A-OK. I wish the court would just admit they make sh$% up all the time, and end this silly argument about original intent.

    Posted by: Patrick | Nov 20, 2009 2:36:51 PM

  23. It's Junior Baby Hughey! Beefy, for short. UGh, originalism...I'd like to ask lawyers who fall for this "theory" of jurisprudence if they understand what logic is. If they've ever taken a logic class, or something close. If they can use words...instead of just emotions dressed up like sentences. Specifically, if they know what underdetermination of meaning means, and how it effects all natural languages (the languages that laws are written in).

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 20, 2009 2:38:25 PM

  24. affects...

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 20, 2009 2:41:23 PM

  25. Fat greasy Tony always blows from the wrong end first. Guido says reals ass hat.

    Posted by: ggreen | Nov 20, 2009 2:51:22 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Photographer Seeks Closeted Military Personnel« «