Scalia's Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

[martybegan]

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

Switched over to Fox News this morning, you know, for shits and giggles and they could't stop talking about Scalia's Dissent. However, every time they quoted it, there was no mention of law or precedent or any type of logical argument in the form of a traditional dissenting opinion, just personal attacks and mindless rambling.

Very shameful to see a long-time justice on this nations highest court act this way.

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

At least he admitted that the case was very personal to him, alluding to his traditional Catholic beliefs. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS functions as a secular body, reason and logic trump Jewish fairy tales and a collection of letters written by the followers of Christ. (the bible)


Does he ever make an argument against the majority opinion or does he just attack his colleagues like child?

I believe the Scalia and Thomas are well beyond their prime. Scalia may be in early stages of dementia.

It's interesting to note how the much older Ginsberg is still more articulate than ever.

You have to understand the rightwingers on the Court and those who agree with them support the narrowest interpretation of the Constitution, with the least amount of latitude, not because of any high minded ideals,

but simply because they know such an interpretation best impedes progress.

They want people to believe that every change must be done by amendment,

because they know that amendments are difficult, and have become close to impossible in today's political climate.
Only when they lose a big battle do they start spouting off about amendments.

Words mean things. Documents mean things. to Progs such as youself the ends always justify the means.

SSM would have been legal legislatively in more than 1/2 the country 10-15 years from now if you would have just continued what you were doing. The court SHOULD have voted to make states recognize other SSM's issued in other States, not force all states to issue. THAT would have been following the outline of the Constitution, not the ruling we got last week.

But by using progressive lawyers to get what you want, you have found the cheap and easy way, and all it requires is destroying the concept of the constitution as written.

Gay marriage was an easily settled question because as you say, words mean something and the words in the Constitution that guarantee equal protection under the law easily settle the question.

Only if you make the definition of "equal" mean what you want it to mean.

So I guess I should have the same Concealed carry rights as a person in Texas, considering equal protection, right? New York Cities gun laws are unconstitutional, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

Switched over to Fox News this morning, you know, for shits and giggles and they could't stop talking about Scalia's Dissent. However, every time they quoted it, there was no mention of law or precedent or any type of logical argument in the form of a traditional dissenting opinion, just personal attacks and mindless rambling.

Very shameful to see a long-time justice on this nations highest court act this way.

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

At least he admitted that the case was very personal to him, alluding to his traditional Catholic beliefs. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS functions as a secular body, reason and logic trump Jewish fairy tales and a collection of letters written by the followers of Christ. (the bible)


Does he ever make an argument against the majority opinion or does he just attack his colleagues like child?

I believe the Scalia and Thomas are well beyond their prime. Scalia may be in early stages of dementia.

It's interesting to note how the much older Ginsberg is still more articulate than ever.

You have to understand the rightwingers on the Court and those who agree with them support the narrowest interpretation of the Constitution, with the least amount of latitude, not because of any high minded ideals,

but simply because they know such an interpretation best impedes progress.

They want people to believe that every change must be done by amendment,

because they know that amendments are difficult, and have become close to impossible in today's political climate.
Only when they lose a big battle do they start spouting off about amendments.

Words mean things. Documents mean things. to Progs such as youself the ends always justify the means.

SSM would have been legal legislatively in more than 1/2 the country 10-15 years from now if you would have just continued what you were doing. The court SHOULD have voted to make states recognize other SSM's issued in other States, not force all states to issue. THAT would have been following the outline of the Constitution, not the ruling we got last week.

But by using progressive lawyers to get what you want, you have found the cheap and easy way, and all it requires is destroying the concept of the constitution as written.

Gay marriage was an easily settled question because as you say, words mean something and the words in the Constitution that guarantee equal protection under the law easily settle the question.

Only if you make the definition of "equal" mean what you want it to mean.

So I guess I should have the same Concealed carry rights as a person in Texas, considering equal protection, right? New York Cities gun laws are unconstitutional, right?

The Court decides who's equal under the law. Who should decide it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

Switched over to Fox News this morning, you know, for shits and giggles and they could't stop talking about Scalia's Dissent. However, every time they quoted it, there was no mention of law or precedent or any type of logical argument in the form of a traditional dissenting opinion, just personal attacks and mindless rambling.

Very shameful to see a long-time justice on this nations highest court act this way.

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

At least he admitted that the case was very personal to him, alluding to his traditional Catholic beliefs. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS functions as a secular body, reason and logic trump Jewish fairy tales and a collection of letters written by the followers of Christ. (the bible)


Does he ever make an argument against the majority opinion or does he just attack his colleagues like child?

I believe the Scalia and Thomas are well beyond their prime. Scalia may be in early stages of dementia.

It's interesting to note how the much older Ginsberg is still more articulate than ever.

You have to understand the rightwingers on the Court and those who agree with them support the narrowest interpretation of the Constitution, with the least amount of latitude, not because of any high minded ideals,

but simply because they know such an interpretation best impedes progress.

They want people to believe that every change must be done by amendment,

because they know that amendments are difficult, and have become close to impossible in today's political climate.
Only when they lose a big battle do they start spouting off about amendments.

Words mean things. Documents mean things. to Progs such as youself the ends always justify the means.

SSM would have been legal legislatively in more than 1/2 the country 10-15 years from now if you would have just continued what you were doing. The court SHOULD have voted to make states recognize other SSM's issued in other States, not force all states to issue. THAT would have been following the outline of the Constitution, not the ruling we got last week.

But by using progressive lawyers to get what you want, you have found the cheap and easy way, and all it requires is destroying the concept of the constitution as written.

Gay marriage was an easily settled question because as you say, words mean something and the words in the Constitution that guarantee equal protection under the law easily settle the question.

Only if you make the definition of "equal" mean what you want it to mean.

So I guess I should have the same Concealed carry rights as a person in Texas, considering equal protection, right? New York Cities gun laws are unconstitutional, right?

Anyone with standing can challenge NY's gun laws. NY has had a relatively restrictive pistol permitting process for at least 60 years if I'm not mistaken. It's still constitutional and still enforced.

 

[martybegan]

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

Switched over to Fox News this morning, you know, for shits and giggles and they could't stop talking about Scalia's Dissent. However, every time they quoted it, there was no mention of law or precedent or any type of logical argument in the form of a traditional dissenting opinion, just personal attacks and mindless rambling.

Very shameful to see a long-time justice on this nations highest court act this way.

At least he admitted that the case was very personal to him, alluding to his traditional Catholic beliefs. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS functions as a secular body, reason and logic trump Jewish fairy tales and a collection of letters written by the followers of Christ. (the bible)


Does he ever make an argument against the majority opinion or does he just attack his colleagues like child?

I believe the Scalia and Thomas are well beyond their prime. Scalia may be in early stages of dementia.

It's interesting to note how the much older Ginsberg is still more articulate than ever.

You have to understand the rightwingers on the Court and those who agree with them support the narrowest interpretation of the Constitution, with the least amount of latitude, not because of any high minded ideals,

but simply because they know such an interpretation best impedes progress.

They want people to believe that every change must be done by amendment,

because they know that amendments are difficult, and have become close to impossible in today's political climate.
Only when they lose a big battle do they start spouting off about amendments.

Words mean things. Documents mean things. to Progs such as youself the ends always justify the means.

SSM would have been legal legislatively in more than 1/2 the country 10-15 years from now if you would have just continued what you were doing. The court SHOULD have voted to make states recognize other SSM's issued in other States, not force all states to issue. THAT would have been following the outline of the Constitution, not the ruling we got last week.

But by using progressive lawyers to get what you want, you have found the cheap and easy way, and all it requires is destroying the concept of the constitution as written.

Gay marriage was an easily settled question because as you say, words mean something and the words in the Constitution that guarantee equal protection under the law easily settle the question.

Only if you make the definition of "equal" mean what you want it to mean.

So I guess I should have the same Concealed carry rights as a person in Texas, considering equal protection, right? New York Cities gun laws are unconstitutional, right?

The Court decides who's equal under the law. Who should decide it?

The court decided wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

Switched over to Fox News this morning, you know, for shits and giggles and they could't stop talking about Scalia's Dissent. However, every time they quoted it, there was no mention of law or precedent or any type of logical argument in the form of a traditional dissenting opinion, just personal attacks and mindless rambling.

Very shameful to see a long-time justice on this nations highest court act this way.

At least he admitted that the case was very personal to him, alluding to his traditional Catholic beliefs. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS functions as a secular body, reason and logic trump Jewish fairy tales and a collection of letters written by the followers of Christ. (the bible)


Does he ever make an argument against the majority opinion or does he just attack his colleagues like child?

I believe the Scalia and Thomas are well beyond their prime. Scalia may be in early stages of dementia.

It's interesting to note how the much older Ginsberg is still more articulate than ever.

You have to understand the rightwingers on the Court and those who agree with them support the narrowest interpretation of the Constitution, with the least amount of latitude, not because of any high minded ideals,

but simply because they know such an interpretation best impedes progress.

They want people to believe that every change must be done by amendment,

because they know that amendments are difficult, and have become close to impossible in today's political climate.
Only when they lose a big battle do they start spouting off about amendments.

Words mean things. Documents mean things. to Progs such as youself the ends always justify the means.

SSM would have been legal legislatively in more than 1/2 the country 10-15 years from now if you would have just continued what you were doing. The court SHOULD have voted to make states recognize other SSM's issued in other States, not force all states to issue. THAT would have been following the outline of the Constitution, not the ruling we got last week.

But by using progressive lawyers to get what you want, you have found the cheap and easy way, and all it requires is destroying the concept of the constitution as written.

Gay marriage was an easily settled question because as you say, words mean something and the words in the Constitution that guarantee equal protection under the law easily settle the question.

Only if you make the definition of "equal" mean what you want it to mean.

So I guess I should have the same Concealed carry rights as a person in Texas, considering equal protection, right? New York Cities gun laws are unconstitutional, right?

Anyone with standing can challenge NY's gun laws. NY has had a relatively restrictive pistol permitting process for at least 60 years if I'm not mistaken. It's still constitutional and still enforced.

It's not constitutional, I am not equally protected. by your definition my rights are being violated.