U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was at it again yesterday. I have previously criticized Scalia’s apparent insatiable appetite for public notoriety, including violating judicial ethical rules by discussing issues in pending cases. He is the very model of the new celebrity justice that I have criticized in past columns (here and here and here). Now, at Princeton while pitching his latest book, “Reading Law,” Scalia succeeded in not only discussing an issue in two pending same-sex marriage cases but reaffirming homophobic prejudices. Scalia was questioned about his controversial comments equating homosexuality with bestiality by a gay student. Scalia admitted that such comparison are “not necessary, but I think it’s effective.” That appears to be the standard used by this justice in using profoundly insulting language: whether it is effective prose or argument. I will be appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell tonight on MSNBC with the student, freshman Duncan Hosie.
Duncan Hosie asked a disarming question of whether it is really necessary to compare homosexuality to murder and bestiality to make his point. No, Scalia, responded, “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.” He then reaffirmed his support for “morals legislation” and the right of states to criminalize whatever they deem immoral — the very issue that underlies two same-sex marriage cases accepted last week.
Scalia basically told Hosie that comparing millions of Americans to people engaged in murder or bestiality is justified because it is clever: “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd . . . If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” He then added the mocking afterthought that “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.” He certainly has, again, reduced this important human rights issue to an absurd level but I am unsure why that is effective as opposed to being obviously cathartic for Scalia.
I am not sure about Hosie, but I am not only unpersuaded but disgusted by the comments. For full disclosure, I represent the Brown family in the Sister Wives case in Utah challenging this type of morality legislation. As I have written in a prior New York Times column, Scalia is attempting to divide citizens with such arguments and he has been remarkably successful when it comes to gay and polygamy cases. In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.” It is a Scalia parade of horribles. However, it also equates homosexuality with crimes like bestiality which occur without the consent of the victims.
Of course, Scalia does not answer how the right to criminalize immoral acts has been previously used to prosecute marriage of mixed race couples. He repeatedly refers to the slippery slope once the Court strikes down morality legislation, but never discusses his own slippery slope of criminalization for any acts deemed immoral by a majority of citizens.
Scalia’s view of the law seemed perfectly captured in responding to whether the Constitution is a living document. He responded “[i]t isn’t a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.”
Source: ABC
I Reaffirm my comparison of Anthony Scalia….. to a WORM!!!!
Luckily, when those of Sclia’s stripe keel over, they are not being replaced in near sufficient numbers. It will all be over soon enough.
This guy is a total embarrassment as a human being. How the hell could some one of this dismal caliber become a sitting supreme court justice of the United States. Very discouraging for most of us citizens.
Raff,
You and mespo win the prize…..
It is surprising that Scalia would suggest that ‘reduction to the absurd’ could be an effective argument in a case like this.
I believe it was Scalia himself who, on NPR, pointed out that there are some things we take out of democracy meaning we don’t put constitutional rights to a popular vote.
An example of this contention might be the immorality of and the right to free speech.
One might reasonably debate whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual behavior or same sex marriage. But clearly the appeal to ‘reduction to the absurd’ is an attempt to avoid that discussion.
The comparison with murder and bestiality also seem to unnecessarily inflame the issue.
I also find it surprising that a thoughtful person like Scalia cannot distinguish murder from positive interactions between two fully informed adults of sound mind.
All these years I thought Scalia was one of the truly great sophists of our time. Now it is revealed he is just sophomoric.
What a national embarrassment!
When we consider how inappropriate some of Scalia’s remarks have been for a person in his position, I think we really have to wonder if dementia is an issue here.
It would seem that people of rational thought and a global view of how decisions guide MILLIONS of lives, that would FORCE FAT TONY to recuse himself from the two new cases the Supreme Court (now little more than a laughing stock) just accepted. If he refuses, CJ Roberts should be called upon by the President to force FAT TONY to the sidelines on these two cases.
By any measurement, these are EXTREME circumstances.
He responded “[i]t isn’t a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.” speaking of the US Constitution
Well I guess in that light it there is no point in having a Supreme Court, or Congress and the legislatures of the states who might all want to amend the Constitution. How absurd, especially coming from a Justice. He might as well invalidate Marbury v. Madison while he is at it.
It is my understanding that recusal is left to the discretion of the Justices themselves.
Yet some of us have concerns regarding their standards, judgment and sensitivity.
What alternatives are there to make the decision to recuse a bit more objective and systematic?
So how does “one” effect Scalia’s recusal on these upcoming same-sex cases on which he so inelegantly and unethically has widely and publicly shared his prejudices? He is most assuredly not going to recuse himself unless threatened with expulsion from SCOTUS. There was a time when I actually respected members of the SC for what they tried to achieve in keeping with the law and Constitution.
rafflaw,
I KNEW you’d like that video!
Hilarious Elaine!
“He is the very model of the new celebrity justice that I have criticized in past columns.”
**********************
Celebrities are showmen and showmen play to crowds. I don’t much like celebrities.
Has Scalia ever tried a jury trial as a counsel for a plaintiff or defendant, not as a judge? Inquiring minds want to know. How could that be you might ask. Well, these schmucks get good gradees at Harvard or Yale, and then go off to be a court clerk for some appeals court judge or supreme court judge. Then they get a job as an assistant attorney general. Then in some other government job. Then as district court judge or appeals court judge. Then, usually from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. It is my belief that not one Supreme Ct justice has ever represented a criminal defendant in a criminal case and that seven have never tried a court case as a lawyer, not sitting as a district judge. Someone do some research and let us know. We need to know about “know it all Scalia”. Here is a guy who thinks that gay people all have sex with animals.
Scaglia, studied to become a priest, obviously he was too Catholick even for them…. even though he stated in his resume, that he thought he would make an excellent replacement for the current NAZI Pope….
There used to be laws in this country, preventing Catholickass people from running for public office….. SCAG-Lia is a prime example of why those laws should be re-instituted…. He is less than Human….
You could be right Mespo!
what’s in a name – Spot on. That question absolutely was fair because Berndt applied it to Scum Liar just as Scum Liar wanted it applied to gay people.
Berndt wanted the same standard applied to all people so everyone has the same rights, Scum Liar wants a double standard to legalize discrimination and persecution.
Voluntary acts between consenting adults of the same gender? Scum Liar is against it.
Sexual harassment and possibly rape going unpunished (re: Thomas)? Scum Liar is all for it.
We know where he stand…up to his neck in filth. And he enjoys it.
Who says we don’t have an American Pope?
AY,
It has been rumored that Scalia is an Opus Dei member.