Jayruss 0 #1 October 24, 2003 Scalia Ridicules Court's Gay Sex Ruling Thu Oct 23, 9:32 PM ET By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) ridiculed his court's recent ruling legalizing gay sex, telling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility. The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter." Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere. Scalia wrote a bitter dissent in the gay sex case that was longer than the ruling itself. On Thursday, Scalia said judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court, throw over the original meaning of the Constitution when it suits them. "Most of today's experts on the Constitution think the document written in Philadelphia in 1787 was simply an early attempt at the construction of what is called a liberal political order," Scalia told a gathering of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. "All that the person interpreting or applying that document has to do is to read up on the latest academic understanding of liberal political theory and interpolate these constitutional understandings into the constitutional text." Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution. The 50-year-old Intercollegiate Studies Institute is a private conservative education organization that sponsors lectures and conferences and scholarships. The group says its mission is to, "enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise (news - web sites) and Judeo-Christian moral standards." ISI draws much of its funding from conservative foundations, including three controlled by or associated with billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, a vehement critic of former President Clinton. Scalia spoke after standing with some 800 others to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear a case testing the constitutionality of the current version of the pledge as it is recited in public schools and that Scalia will not take part. Scalia apparently sidelined himself because of remarks he made earlier this year critical of a lower court ruling in the case. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) had found the pledge was unconstitutional in public school classroom because of the phrase, "one nation, under God." The Supreme Court could decide to strip the words "under God" from the patriotic oath or rule that the mention of God does not violate the notion of separation of church and state. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #2 October 24, 2003 I happen to agree with the Judge. Too many people are trying to change this country toward what they think it should be and not what it is. If a person does not believe in the constitution which was written for this country they have 2 options 1. MOVE 2. Work to get an amendment to it. The court is not in place to make Laws. The court is there to interpret the law which were created in the early stages of this country. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #3 October 24, 2003 QuoteI happen to agree with the Judge. Too many people are trying to change this country toward what they think it should be and not what it is. If a person does not believe in the constitution which was written for this country they have 2 options 1. MOVE 2. Work to get an amendment to it. The court is not in place to make Laws. The court is there to interpret the law which were created in the early stages of this country. Explain how anyone can change the country to "what it is". Your comment makes no sense at all. Apparently the majority of the Supreme Court justices, all confirmed by the US Senate, disagree with Scalia. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, no more, no less.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymama 35 #4 October 24, 2003 Oh good, another gay thread. We haven't seen enough of those this week. She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man, because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #5 October 24, 2003 That is a little scary... The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #6 October 24, 2003 SO when I become PRES and nominate a bunch of RADICAL Righties to the SC, the law is then what they say it is.... Good!!! Christopher Gross for president 2016!!!!!!! Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #7 October 24, 2003 But where in the constitution does it say that adults can't do what they want in their bedrooms? Where does the constitution even remotely imply Justice Antonin Scalia opinion? They had slavery when they wrote the constitution, was that must have been a bad change for society? Or could it have been that times have changed nearly 100 years after the original writing the constitution? __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #8 October 24, 2003 QuoteOh good, another gay thread. We haven't seen enough of those this week. Ah I'd rather focus on the constitutional bases for this argument rather than gay sex, oh wait you've always been able to have legal oral sex __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #9 October 24, 2003 I agree stick to the constitution. Now, you brought up slavery, and what was done about it? An amendment to the constitution was created. At one time women couldn't vote. SO, we amended the constitution. Do you see a patern. Judges don't change laws...that is not there job. However, groups like the ACLU are currently trying to do just that. Change laws through the courts and not through the house and senate. Why? Because they know they can't. So, instead they seek out juritictions where the judges have the same ideology as them and they sue. The ACLU is a scary and hypocrital group with a lot of power. (My reference to hypocracy relates their recent gag order tactics in a NAMBLA case in MA) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 October 24, 2003 Quotetelling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility. No where in that article does it say what part of the constitution is being ignored. Can someone point out the specific part that is being ignored by striking down anti-sodomy laws? As a matter of fact, I think it is protecting the rights of privace and sexual preference. See the ninth ammendment. QuoteThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Who, besides yourself, should have the right to determine what you do with your body behind closed doors? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #11 October 24, 2003 Well not to argur for the sake of argument, but... If what you do with your body behind closed doors in anyway effects others (through physical or emotional harm) then it is the business of society. Do I feel that this is the case in this situation?No, but the argument could be made in other situations. Example: I shoot heroine in my bedroom and don't leave the house when I am high...so, I should have the right to do that. Wrong because in order for you to get the heroine, you must go through some dealer, and that dealer has murdered or stolen or broken other laws to get the drugs to you. So, your hidden actions have a direct effect on the rest of society. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #12 October 24, 2003 Ok I see the differences in our arguments. You’re arguing the idea that the courts are making laws rather than the constitutionally approved method through the legislator process. In your examples the legislature did change such issues as women voting and slavery. In the sodomy rulings all the court did was over throw state laws (yes another argument could be penned for state rights here) because those laws were unconstitutional. I just want to know where in the constitution Justice Antonin Scalia gets his argument. We actually don’t really differ in our points of view Chris, I agree the ACLU is scary and I agree that the legislator should make the laws. Here all the court did was determine that the said law was unconstitutional. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 October 24, 2003 QuoteI shoot heroine in my bedroom and don't leave the house when I am high...so, I should have the right to do that. Wrong because in order for you to get the heroine, you must go through some dealer, and that dealer has murdered or stolen or broken other laws to get the drugs to you. So, your hidden actions have a direct effect on the rest of society. Well, then you broke other laws that are based on what you do outside your bedroom. And as a matter of fact, it is NOT illegal to be high on heroine when sitting at home. It is illegal to be publicly intoxicated or to posess heroine. But not to be high on it. Kind of supports the argument that what you do with your body at home is your own business. To stick with your theme, what if you grow some pot in your bedroom, smoke it there, and don' t ever leave the house high? And to take your example back to the original subject. Should it be illegal to go out and have gay sex in public, or display gay sex, or any sex on a billboard, etc. Yes, it could offend people. But what about gay sex breaks other laws besides what you are doing right there in your bedroom? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #14 October 24, 2003 Well, while we are being hohnest, i didn't read the final brief of the overruling nor do I know Teax's constitution, but I think Scalia is on to something. The point which he was making ins that the constitution is up for interpretation, and naturally that changes with time, however, A judges job is to be impartial, and free from social pressure in the decisions it makes. It is a body designed not to rule through politiacl belief or personal ideology, instead looking at the arguments in a rational way and comparing them to the written law. Lately in this country this isn't happening there are many cases of it whether it is the pledge, or the 10 commandments (here comes the flame). In this case...I don't know, but I will read up and tell you where I stand. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #15 October 24, 2003 QuoteCan someone point out the specific part that is being ignored by striking down anti-sodomy laws? The premise of Scalia's argument is weak. It basically say "because homosexual sex was illegal at the time of the writing of the constitution, then it's against what the constitution stands for". If that's the case, then we'll have to change all our laws to go back 200 years. I think burning witches was legal back then, correct?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 October 24, 2003 Agreed that the supremes aren't always impartial, but it does go both ways. Whenever you're dealing with religious based issues (abortion, gay sex, pledge, 10 commandments) it is impossible to be completely impartial. You're dealing with people who have fundamentally different understandings of what is THE TRUTH. My truth is that there is no God and any laws based on belief in one are wrong. Someone elses truth may be that God exists and laws should reflect that since he is the supreme being. I don't think impartiality or consensus regarding issues of this type will ever be resolved until it is proven one way or the other to everyone's satisfaction whether there is a god or not, and if so, which one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #17 October 24, 2003 Well, my agument about that is this... I am agnostic. I am a scientist who believes in Darwinism and not some creation theory. However, I understand why there is religion and agree people have the right to practice religion. We need to face the fact that this country was founded on a judeo-christian philosophy ... Like it or not it was! Separation of Church and state was designed more to keep the Government away from religion than it was to keep religion away from the government. Other constituional rights exist such as freedom of speech or expression, and this is where the secularist drive me NUTS. Based on the first ammendment if the State house want to put up a CHRISMAS TREE on the lawn it can, BUT, it can not discriminate and dissallow other religions to put up symbols of celebration for their holidays. But the secularists will tell you NO, the 1st ammendments says No ONE has the right to put anything up. That is a misinterpretation of our constitutuion. You are then preventing expreesion rights. The law does not say You can't express religion It says you can not exclude. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samhussey 0 #18 October 24, 2003 I don't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK we have the concept of judicial interpretation. This means that effectively the judges DO make the laws, by carrying them out as they see fit to the circumstances of the case. In the case of gay sex, most judges apply the outdated laws liberally (if conviction is even sought!) as they see that society has changed and become more tolerant and cosmopolitan. We have no codified constitution though, so that invariably helps this process. In the US your constitution is sovereign, and all laws must be made and adhered to within it's context. So from this point of view I also see the point about amending it, not disobeying it. But is it right to obey laws that are blatantly segregational and unjust? It's a tricky question, but on this one I'd have to go against this supreme court guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #19 October 24, 2003 Ok, I'll stir things up. I agree with Storm on this one thing, although I suspect I'll violently disagree with him on many other things. The SC's decision in this case was weak. They invented and stretched in order to find a basis for the decision. In my biased world, I WANTED them to get to this decision, but because I'm intellectually honest I have to admit their reasoning was nonsense. Disallowing anti-sodomy laws is morally right, but it's not constitutionally right. I wish it was constitutionally right as well, but there are too many nasty, nosey, authoritarian people in the country to let that happen. I believe the SC decided it was time to be reasonable and just and merciful instead of constitutionally exact. That's a strange and dangerous thing for them to decide. We may regret it someday. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #20 October 24, 2003 Well you say Blatantly wrong and unjust.... That is your opinion. I know how you would vote if it were up to you. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but who are you to interpret the Law? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #21 October 24, 2003 I love you man!!!! You are actually able to see what the major problem here is. It is not this case specifically, it is the fact the judges with their own agenda's are changing the law. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 October 24, 2003 Well, he's one of the people that government is supposed to be by, for and of. So he has every right to interpret it. Not necessarily a right to disobey it, though. There are plenty of laws on the books that are ambiguous and need to be interpreted. That's the nature of a non-totalitarian government. Correction....thought you were replying to the post above yours. He's not one of the people of our gov't. But it doesn't make his opinion any less valid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #23 October 24, 2003 QuoteWell you say Blatantly wrong and unjust.... That is your opinion. I know how you would vote if it were up to you. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but who are you to interpret the Law? Chris Who are you to interpret it? The ONLY authority to interpret the Constitution lies with the Supreme Court, and the majority of members of that court have made that interpretation in this case. By definition, they are right, and if you disagree, you are wrong, on the issue of constitutionality. Tough on poor Scalia, but he's just a sore loser in this case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #24 October 24, 2003 QuoteThey invented and stretched in order to find a basis for the decision. How so? QuoteDisallowing anti-sodomy laws is morally right, but it's not constitutionally right. I wish it was constitutionally right as well, but there are too many nasty, nosey, authoritarian people in the country to let that happen. So you’re more of a “letter of the law” guy? Isn’t it constitutionally right to defend moral inequities? QuoteThat's a strange and dangerous thing for them to decide. We may regret it someday. What do you foresee that will cause us to regret this someday? __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #25 October 24, 2003 I'm going to make an analogy to illuminate my last point, which was that we may regret a merciful and just SC someday. Imagine your DZO walks up to you one day and says, "Because you fixed my airplane, I'm giving you 10 free jump tickets." Well, you know you didn't fix his airplane. You don't know HOW to fix airplanes. Maybe it was someone who looked like you. But you need 10 jump tickets. Maybe you even deserve them for something else that you did like cleaning the DZ bathroom. This is fantastic! Except for one thing: You've just learned that your DZO is lousy about keeping track of the maintenance of his airplanes.... And that could be very bad indeed. The SC gave gay people something they deserve, but they did it for the wrong reasons. And tomorrow or next year they may give the bad guys something on the same basis. Very scary. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
