Scalia: Affirmative Action Sends Blacks To Schools Too Advanced For Them

I have long argued that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia needs to be removed from the United States Supreme Court for continued violations of the conduct and impartiality of a federal judge (dimwit Clarence Thomas also needs to be removed).  Indeed, if Scalia were still on the U.S. District Court or U. S. Court of Appeals level, he would likely have already been removed from the bench and/or would be facing removal charges for flagrant violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct.  Now, right after hearing oral arguments in an affirmative action case out of Texas, Scalia has made the statement that affirmative action was hurting minority students by sending them to schools too academically challenging for them. Keep in mind, the Court has not yet ruled in the case and if a lower federal court judge made a similar statement, he or she would have their ass handed to them in a sling.  No doubt Scalia thinks blacks should be majoring in grounds keeping and/or restaurant wait staff services.  The man is both a racist and a religious - and he so arrogant can't even hide his bias by keeping his mouth shut until after the Court issues it ruling. Talking Points Memo looks at Scalia's improper conduct and bigotry.  Here are highlights:

In the oral arguments Wednesday for a Supreme Court affirmative action case, Justice Antonin Scalia—a well known critic of affirmative action—suggested that the policy was hurting minority students by sending them to schools too academically challenging for them.

Referencing an unidentified amicus brief, Scalia said that there were people who would contend that "it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well."

A decision in Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin is expected by the end of the Supreme Court's term next summer.

Scalia would have been a perfect judge for the Spanish Inquisition.  He is one foul individual. 

Antonin Scalia: The Supreme Court Mullah

As we await the rulings today in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor it's worthwhile to look at a piece in Slate that examines the bigotry of Justice Antonin Scalia who, in my opinion, becomes more insane and unfit for a position on the Court with each passing day.  The man cares nothing for the rights and lives of others - as is the norm for the Christofascists - and would seemingly be better placed among the mullahs in Tehran or conservative regions of Pakistan.  Here are some article highlights that follow up on Scalia's rant on "morality" last week in North Carolina:

In a speech last week titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association that the court has no place acting as a “judge moralist” in issues better left to the people. Since judges aren’t qualified—or constitutionally authorized—to set moral standards, he argued, the people should decide what’s morally acceptable.

But does Scalia, whose quarter-century on the bench has marked him as the court’s moral scold for his finger-wagging views on social issues, have a coherent understanding of what it means to say something is or isn’t moral, and of morality’s proper role in the law?

Scalia would have you believe it’s liberal, pro-gay sympathizers who are imposing their own brand of moral laxity on the nation, and unconstitutionally using the courts to do it. His angry dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case ending sodomy bans—decided 10 years ago this week—blasted the court for embracing “a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda [which is] directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

“Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments,” he wrote, “have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is ‘immoral and unacceptable’ constitutes a rational basis for regulation.”

Yet as Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out in her concurring opinion in Lawrence, that’s not actually true. At least when you’re singling out a group for separate treatment. “We have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.”

He defends the people’s right to legislate their belief that some forms of sex are “immoral and unacceptable,” to oppose, by law, “a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive,” and to pass public indecency statutes to protect “order and morality.”

If what’s really at issue are acts that threaten safety, health, and order, why do people like Scalia keep insisting that mere moral disapproval, rather than preventing harm, should be a constitutionally legitimate basis to limit people’s rights?  The entire anti-gay movement has gotten this memo. Which is why arguments that gay people are sick, disgusting and all-around morally bad have yielded, since the 1990s, to arguments alleging that gays threaten to cause concrete harm to American families and institutions.

Scalia seems to reduce morality to feelings and tastes alone. He wants judges to get out of the way and respect that “people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough” to pass laws against them. For him, it was the very “impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional ‘morals’ offenses” that allowed the court to ban sodomy prior to Lawrence. But homosexuality is distinguishable from other morals “offenses.” Assisted suicide, incest, adultery, pornography—all these arguably cause some form of harm to living creatures, while two women loving each other just doesn’t.

What we should no longer be able to get away with in the 21^st century is calling something immoral just because we don’t like it. Genuine moral judgment is not reducible to whatever people feel, what they like or don’t like. (Isn’t that what lax liberals are alleged to believe?) Morality is not just whatever views a majority has long held, and it’s not simply what you learned on your mother’s knee or whatever it says in your faith’s scripture. Moral belief is a grounded judgment about what harms or helps living things. Yet somehow, homosexuality’s become just about the only thing left that people get to call immoral without every explaining why.

Antonin Scalia Again Proves He's a Bigoted Ass

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.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/21/4121621/nc-lawyers-listen-as-justice-scalia.html#storylink=cpy

[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.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/21/4121621/nc-lawyers-listen-as-justice-scalia.html#storylink=cpy

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.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/21/4121621/nc-lawyers-listen-as-justice-scalia.html#storylink=cpy