Once again flouting judicial propriety Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a bur up his ass and was whining that the Supreme Court should not be deciding "moral issues" where there is no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.” As one might expect, homosexuality and gay rights fall within this category in Scalia's bigoted mind. Of course, he doesn't say who should make such decisions, although given his slavish obedience to the Catholic Church one must assume he'd leave it to the churches and religious charlatans at outfits like Family Research Council to rule on the rights of minorities. He also ignores the reality that outside of organizations funded by far right religious groups, there is a scientifically right answer on gays. Homosexuality is NORMAL, unchangeable, and many of the leading medical and mental health organizations support gay marriage rights. With Scalia, his personal beliefs and Medieval religious views always trump all else. He is one of the "mullahs" that he complains about but seemingly has failed to take a good look at himself in the mirror. He really needs to be removed from the Supreme Court. Here are highlights from the Charlotte Observer:
ASHEVILLE With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues. Why? We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.
In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.
During his speech, Scalia acknowledged that his opinion is not universally shared. Many legal scholars and judges – including some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court – believe in a “living Constitution” that reflects “evolving standards of decency.” This also has given rise to what Scalia decried as a sprawling application of the provisions of human rights and equal protection under the law.
In response to a question, he said he does not ascribe to a Constitution locked away from change. The law must evolve to deal with new phenomena, he said, but it should do so while remaining firmly moored in its founding principles. And most moral issues, he added, don’t qualify as new.
One of those moral debates – gay marriage – is now before the high court. The justices are expected to rule next week on two same-sex cases. One involves the federal Defense of Marriage Act; the other, California’s Proposition 8. Both oppose gay marriage.
[D]uring 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.
His earlier statements about the legal rights of gay couples are even more outspoken. During an October speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Scalia described the death penalty, abortion and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy” constitutional issues. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years it was criminal in every state.”
Apparently, no one reminded Scalia that slavery was legal for thousands of years. A long running wrong doesn't somehow become right simply through a long period of abuse of others. Scalia is nothing short of a flaming asshole in my view.
No comments:
Post a Comment