Antonin Scalia Hub




Justice Scalia Calls Gays an 'Invented Minority'

In a speech to the Federalist Society  in Bozeman, Montana yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia called gays an "invented minority" when he referenced recent rulings on same-sex marriage, the AP reports:

A_scalia“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Scalia told a packed hotel ballroom in southwestern Montana.

The Supreme Court earlier this year cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California and struck down part of a federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving benefits. Scalia voted against the majority of justices.

Changes to the Constitution were made to protect minorities and to give women the right to vote, but that’s not how the court operates today, he said. Rather, a majority of five judges decide issues that should be in the hands of Congress or made through a change to the Constitution.

The Billings Gazette adds:

“We’re now in an age when the high court’s opinions speak of an evolving Constitution,” he said. “It means what it ought to mean. And who decides what it ought to mean?

“Nine lawyers. Actually five lawyers. What, are you crazy? Who would ever set up a system like that?”

Scalia, considered an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, said the court’s justices are no better suited to decide what rights ought to exist than is “Joe Sixpack.”

“These aren’t questions for lawyers,” he said. “These are the kind of questions that society debates and decides.”


Antonin Scalia Condemns Judicial Activism, Invokes The Holocaust

Antonin Scalia

This weekend in Snowmass, CO Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to a gathering of the Utah State Bar Association. The "strict originalist" bemoaned judicial activism and his colleagues treating the Constitution as a "living document" in a speech titled "Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters." His argument was that elected officials, not unelected judges, should be the ones to legislate society's moral views.

Justice Scalia wasted no time in invoking Godwin's Law, opening his speech with the claim that judges interpreting the law in ways that reflected "the spirit of the age" in 1930's Germany was what led to the rise of the Nazis and, ultimately, the holocaust. He also pointed out that Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution wasn't necessary at the turn of the century in response to the women's suffrage movement. However, he conveniently omitted that it was due to the Supreme Court intervention that schools were desegregated and interracial marriages were made legal.

Scalia received a standing ovation for his speech, the attendees apparently unaware that the first person to invoke Godwin's Law loses the argument.


Scalia's Intemperate DOMA Dissent and The Next Marriage Case

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

La-511969927.jpg-20120626The "What's Next" series takes an in depth look at marriage and gay rights, in general, after the Supreme Court's momentous rulings striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8. Today's column looks at Justice Scalia's dissent in Windsor.

It may seem dissonant to discuss a dissent before a majority opinion, but Justice Scalia's sometimes-snarky, often-intemperate, and always-ballsy dissent in Windsor v. United States teaches us much about where we are going, the struggles we have ahead, and about the justice himself.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, discussed briefly here, struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a violation of equal protection and due process. Justice Scalia not only disagreed; he disagreed with an unusually cold chip on his shoulder.

Scalia's dissent is a tableau of inconsistency, a magician's misdirection, and oversimplification: he rails against judicial intervention, but calls for the very judicial immodesty he says he despises; he says the case is about letting Congress do its job and confuses you when he gets around to talking about what the majority actually did; and, he presumes that the fight for marriage is over, remaining willfully blind to the very obstacles people like him are putting in our faces.

Follow me AFTER THE JUMP as I show how wrong Scalia was at every turn, both in his manifestly exaggerated predictions and his legal reasoning.

CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "Scalia's Intemperate DOMA Dissent and The Next Marriage Case" »


Scalia's Son Paul Thinks Homosexuals Are Just Straight People With 'Same-Sex Attraction'

You may recall that Reverend Paul Scalia, the son of homophobic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is a Catholic priest who served as Chaplain for Courage - a Catholic ex-gay group that encourages gays to practice lifelong celibacy and attend their "play the gay away" athletic camps.

Paul Scalia currently serves as Courage's Chairman of the Board of Directors and will speak this month at the organization's annual summit. The website touting the summit also links to a 2012 article written by Scalia in which he praises the writings of Courage founder Father John Harvey. 

Paul_scaliaScalia praises Harvey for no longer using the terms "homosexual" and "sexual orientation" because Scalia thinks that gay people are only straight people experiencing "same sex-attraction." For him, there is only one true sexual orientation — the one that leads to heterosexual marriage, and his article (excerpted below) reveals the intellectual rationalizations that allow ex-gay therapies to thrive in the secular world while remaining firmly rooted in fundamentalist homophobia:

In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the CDF document). In short, we should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations. The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon. Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person.” His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with “same-sex attractions.” Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an “orientation.” Which brings us to another matter of vocabulary.…

Father Harvey’s use of the term “orientation” also underwent a deserved change. In his first two books we find the use of this word to describe homosexual inclinations or attractions. In the last book, however, he deliberately avoids it. This reflects the increased appreciation for the fact that homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation.” Further, the term does violence to a proper understanding of human sexuality. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual “orientation” any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient).

Indeed, one of Father Harvey’s contributions is his discussion of the possibility for healing of homosexual attractions. He deftly navigates the extremes (on one hand, that change is impossible… on the other hand, that it is morally obligatory) to present the simple truth that many have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions. Thus we cannot speak of it as a fixed, unchangeable, unchanging “orientation.”

Scalia has used such sophistry before to justify parental disapproval of gay kids and opposition to gay-straight alliances in public schools. For him, homosexuality is nothing more than an attraction, one that should be changed or suppressed for a lifetime to attain moral communion with a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of God.


Rush Limbaugh: Gay Marriage Supporters 'Don't Give A Damn About Rule Of Law Or Decency': AUDIO

RushRush Limbaugh took time out of his radio program yesterday to tear into supporters of same-sex marriage and praise the dissenting arguments presented by Justice Scalia in the DOMA case. Mediaite reports:

Limbaugh read Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the case against the Defense of Marriage Act and praised him for identifying insults in the majority opinion directed at DOMA supporters. "It proves that we are up against people who don't give a damn about the rule of law, or about decency, or about decorum," he said.

"The Supreme Court has now demonized supporters of traditional marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years. The Supreme Court majority in its ruling actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it has been since the beginning of time," he said.

He goes on to complain about how the "left is intolerant and fully invested in the low art of personal destruction through smear tactics," which is ironic considering Limbaugh's body of work.  

Listen, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "Rush Limbaugh: Gay Marriage Supporters 'Don't Give A Damn About Rule Of Law Or Decency': AUDIO" »


Justice Antonin Scalia Says Judges Shouldn't Decide if Being Gay is Morally Acceptable

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association in a speech on Friday that constitutional law is increasingly threatened by a belief in the "judge moralist" and that it is society's, and not the court's job to decide what is morally acceptable, the Charlotte Observer reports:

Scalia

Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.”
...

Scalia, known for his provocative comments and writings since being appointed in 1986, is barred from publicly discussing pending cases. But during his half-hour speech at the Grove Park Inn on Friday, the 77-year-old frequently listed homosexuality among the issues that should be decided by the public and not unelected judges.

His comments during the March oral arguments for the same-sex marriage cases followed a similar bent. “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” he asked.
...

Raleigh attorney John Sarratt said he expects the thoughts Scalia expressed Friday to be reflected in the judge’s upcoming opinion on gay marriage – that the courts should leave the existing laws alone.

Scalia was asked if he would have adopted the same approach to Brown v. Board of Education:

Scalia said he would have voted with the majority on the case to create more educational opportunities for blacks. He added, however, that “a good result” doesn’t make for good law. Had the courts not interceded, he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.

N.C. lawyers listen as Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling [charlotte observer]


Trending



Towleroad - Blogged