Fair and Impartial Jurisprudence in Alabama
- Thread starter Problem Child
- Start date
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
sunstruck said:
Actually, I'm just assuming that's his stance. Lavender could probably tell you for sure, but I guess she's got a date with her rabbit tonight.
Look, I never said Scalia could be considered pro-gay. I'm just trying to keep the distinction between him and this redneck down in Bammy.
Scalia represents a lot of conservatives in this country who have ideals based on religion and tradition, and are good people. The other guy represents Neo-nazis and Klansmen with wacked-out super-fundamental religious beliefs. That's as clear as I can make it.
I’ve never seen a same-sex announcement in our papers – south Georgia / north Florida. Deep South.
BTW, the Scalia quote was from his dissenting opinion in Romer (CO gov.) v. Evans, which was decided in 1996. I probably should have included more of it, or a whole lot less …
BTW, the Scalia quote was from his dissenting opinion in Romer (CO gov.) v. Evans, which was decided in 1996. I probably should have included more of it, or a whole lot less …
Mischka
Ms Snooby Pants
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Posts
- 15,820
Scalia isn't for or against gay marriage, from a judicial viewpoint. He simply does not believe that the Court should legislate gay rights from the bench. He's a strict constructionist, and believes the Legislature should pass any such legislation, in accordance with the opinion of the people.
He said he does not agree with Brown v. Board for the same reason. Basically, he doesn't think a right legally exists until Congress says so. So much for the Ninth Amendment.
He said he does not agree with Brown v. Board for the same reason. Basically, he doesn't think a right legally exists until Congress says so. So much for the Ninth Amendment.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Mischka said:
Are you saying that he is totally against states rights? Wouldn't a guy like Scalia be for states determining their own laws especially on things like abortion and pronography?
Mischka
Ms Snooby Pants
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Posts
- 15,820
Not saying that. Read "Congress" in my first post to be federal or state. Unless either level of the legislature expressly grants a person a right, he does not believe it exists, and will not legislate it from the bench. Privacy, for example. Not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, it does not exist outside of specifc legislative acts.Problem Child said:
Now, I believe the Ninth reserves such rights not expressly mentioned. But he's the one in the black robe. For now.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Seems like he's making a lot of sense to me. The problem isn't with him, it's with the state which has already legislated that some homosexual acts are illegal. If the state is saying that certain homosexual acts are illegal, then how can they say that it's alright to lagalize an act that validates homosexuality itself?
Am I reading it too simplistically?
Am I reading it too simplistically?
Mischka
Ms Snooby Pants
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Posts
- 15,820
Yes and no. There's support to the idea that the people are not ready for a fundamental change until the legislature has banged out all the details. A handful of robes cannot change the mentality of the nation, no mater how good their intention. As lavy pointed out in the Colorado case, the people already expressed their changing viewpoint through legislative acts. That wasn't enough for Scalia, though. He wants an express legislative act legalizing gay marriage before he would uphold it.Problem Child said:
Brown v. Board is a good example of legisation from the bench. At the time, it was revolutionary. In theory, it's a wonderful idea. But has it really worked out? Segregation is now de facto, and increasing. When we start out with a flawed society, perhaps progress cannot happen at the impatient pace of a few judges.
However, I still think Scalia's dead wrong on several issues. Again, think of privacy. What can be more fundamental than privacy from the prying eyes of government? Several Founding Fathers did not want to enumerate the Bill of Rights for fear that literalists would think those are the only rights the people have. Two hundred years later, and guess what? Scalia can't see past the ink on the page.
Last edited:
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Someone should just beat me for trying to understand constitutional law at 1 a.m.
But he invokes the Ninth
when it suits him.
How about the grandparents visitation thing? (Great, I sound about 9 years old. It's late.)
In that situation, he claimed that "a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children" was one of the unnamed liberties included in the Ninth Amendment. I guess sexual orientation isn't so innate as parenting impulses?? LOL
when it suits him.
Mischka said:
How about the grandparents visitation thing? (Great, I sound about 9 years old. It's late.)
In that situation, he claimed that "a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children" was one of the unnamed liberties included in the Ninth Amendment. I guess sexual orientation isn't so innate as parenting impulses?? LOL
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
lavy says yes.
mishkie says no.
You two have to pudding wrestle to break the tie.
mishkie says no.
You two have to pudding wrestle to break the tie.
Azwed
Invading Poland
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,575
I am guessing Scalia either had not read much of Locke's work or does not put to much faith in it based off of what I have read of him.
Oh and reading all that has just convinced me I have no desire to ever be a lawyer. My head hurts in kind of a semitruck driving between my ears way.
Oh and reading all that has just convinced me I have no desire to ever be a lawyer. My head hurts in kind of a semitruck driving between my ears way.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Mischka said:
No way. Those people are freaks.
