Scalia equates being gay with murder

He’s such a nice guy, that Antonin Scalia.

Speaking at Princeton University in his native New Jersey, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

Uh huh.  So can we have moral feelings against race? How about against Jews?

Scalia is known for being a bit of a partisan ass (which only made it funnier when Scalia complained a few years back that judges have become too partisan).  Scalia once gave the “FU” sign to reporters at church. And his written opinions, as the student noted, routinely give the FU to gays.

Among his more outrageous opinions, Scalia once lamented that if we don’t let states ban gays from having sex then states will also lose the right to ban masturbation. This is from his infamous dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case that found state sodomy laws unconstitutional:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding…. The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”

What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails.

So, how exactly does Scalia think a state should regulate masturbation?  I mean, how do you figure out “original intent” when it comes to the acceptable 18th century technique for spanking the proverbial Founding monkey? Can’t you just see Scalia, a brandy in one hand, a pipe in the other, assembling his fawning young clerks around a roaring fire, and posing the age-old question:

“How did Thomas Jefferson masturbate?”

Scalia’s absurd opinion led us to celebrate “Happy Sodomy Day!” back in 2006, when the Congress was debating passage of the Marriage Protection Act, which would have denied courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA.  A lot of Republicans were on board, in the name of defending traditional marriage of course.  So we wanted to know just how traditional their marriages were.  So we called and asked them. Oh, and this was the graphic we used for the campaign:


First up, then-US Senator George Allen’s office (R-VA):

ALLEN’S OFFICE: Good morning, Senator Allen’s office

AMERICABLOG READER: Yes I’m calling to see if the senator supports traditional marriage.

OFFICE: Yes he does, he supports the bill.

READER: Okay, and he’s divorced?

OFFICE: Uh (uncomfortably) yes sir.

READER: Yes, okay.

OFFICE: (she quickly adds) But he’s remarried.

READER: What was the cause of his divorce? Do you know the reason? Is his wife remarried?

OFFICE: I don’t know, it was a long time ago sir.

READER: Okay, could you tell me if the senator masturbates?

OFFICE:  I’m sorry, I can’t answer these questions.

READER: Can you tell me, do you masturbate?


My favorite perhaps was when one of our readers called Sen. Mike Crapo’s office (R-ID):

Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage?
Yes he is, he’s a cosponsor of the bill.
He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?
I could not tell you that.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
I cannot tell you that either.
Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio?
What is the purpose of this questioning?
It’s regarding his views on traditional marriage.
Okay, he supports the bill.
Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?
I could not give you an answer on that.
Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?
I could not answer that.
Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?
Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
It’s regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.
Any one of those questions I could not answer.
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Again, I will not answer that.
It’s nobody’s business, right?
That’s right.
Okay, thank you.

Brilliant.  If people like Scalia think sodomy should be illegal, then it’s fair to ask the man if he’s law-breaker.  The student who asked Scalia about his personal at-home sodomy got some flak for his question.  He responded in a wonderful letter we posted years ago:

I am 17 months out of a lifelong closet and have lost too much time to heterosexist hegemony to tolerate those who say, as Dr. King put it, “just wait.” If you cannot stomach a breach of decorum when justified outrage erupts then your support is nearly worthless anyway. At least do not allow yourselves to become complicit in discrimination by demanding obedience from its victims.

Many of our classmates chose NYU over higher-ranked schools because of our reputation as a “private university in the public service” and our commitment to certain values. We were the first law school to require that employers pledge not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Of Scalia’s law schools that have “signed on to the homosexual agenda,” our signature stands out like John Hancock’s. We won a federal injunction in the FAIR litigation as an “expressive association” that counts acceptance of sexual orientation as a core value. Those who worry about our school’s prestige should remember how we got here and consider whether flattering those who mock what we believe and are otherwise willing to fight for appears prestigious or pathetic. We protestors did not embarrass NYU, Scalia embarrassed NYU. We stood up to a bigot for the values that make NYU more than a great place to learn the law.

We could all benefit from standing up to a few more bigots.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

80 Responses to “Scalia equates being gay with murder”

  1. hollywoodstein says:

    Scalia when asked if he believed in the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation where a priest waves his hands and mutters some words over a cup of cheap wine and turns it into the actual blood of Christ, and then turns crackers into the actual body of Christ. Scalia said yes, absolutely.
    Those Opus Dei guys are not social Catholics, some of them are DaVinci Code scary cultists.

  2. Don Chandler says:

    Are you sure you aren’t dr ruth? So frank, matter-of-fact and to the point.

  3. Ann Stauner says:

    In his comments to that student Scalia himself pretty much admitted that his argument was absurd. I believe he called it ‘reductio ad absurdum’. Got that right, Judge! Probably not how he meant it but it pretty much fits. Societies changing or transient sexual mores and Morality ( capital M) are not necessarily the same thing. Concepts of morality are based on the idea of an unjust harm either to an individual or to society. If marriage is good for heterosexual people in that it provides them with a happy and fulfilling family life and binds them to the community, then it is good for gay people as well to be married and good for society if they are. Is that not true?

  4. FLL says:

    Scalia’s comments at Princeton are calculated to be noxious and insulting, but he hasn’t given the attorneys the gift of saying something as unambiguous as “Tell you what, I just can’t stand gay people.” You’re probably right to say that if there is a shadow of a doubt, attorneys usually won’t ask for recusal, even though the evidence is convincing to the average reasonable person.

  5. Stev84 says:

    Could be worse. Look at Calvinism. Nothing you do matters because you’re 99,9% sure to end up in hell before you’re even born.

  6. Stev84 says:

    In English “sodomy” used to refer to anything that isn’t penis-in-vagina sex. Oral sex is technically sodomy. Legally, “Forceful sodomy” can still mean forcing someone to give oral sex.

    The word is also used differently in other languages. In French it refers to explicitly to anal sex. In German it’s bestiality only.

  7. Stev84 says:

    Scalia is an admitted agent of the Vatican who said that judges and politicians should step down if they can’t carry out the commands of the Pope:

  8. Stev84 says:

    Asking a judge to recuse himself is usually a bad idea unless you are really, really sure. Usually it would just piss him off. But Scalia is so incredibly biased that it doesn’t hurt to ask him. Just to have it officially on the record.

  9. FLL says:

    The attorneys in the Windsor case and the Prop 8 case have the right to ask for Scalia to recuse himself. After all, a black defendant could ask for a judge to recuse himself if the assigned judge had made racist comments outside of court, on the grounds that the judge would have a bias against the defendant. Why aren’t the attorneys in these two cases asking for Scalia to recuse himself, based on Scalia’s comments at Princeton? The press can demand that the attorney’s ask for recusal, but it’s really the responsibility of the attorney’s.

  10. silas1898 says:

    12/10/00 A date that should live in infamy.

  11. A reader in Colorado says:

    And so .. ?

    He’s not going to be impeached. The Republicans would never let him be impeached.

    But I don’t care that he thinks that the law is whatever he says it is either.

    The volume on this is 1 when it needs to be 10. I don’t care what he cares about. What I care about is that he’s let get away with it. Thomas, too, when he committed his impeachable offense. But this…? Penning hateful anti gay books while judging cases involving gays? COME ON.


    Why is this bastard allowed, year after year, to make up his own rules? This is ridiculous. Allowing him on the court under THESE circumstances makes an absolute mockery of the court itself.

    If impartiality doesn’t allow for a person equating gay people with animal diddlers, pedophiles and murders to be excluded, what does it mean at all?

    If anything, the last straw ought to be it.

    If anything more mocking of the Supreme Court could even be had, it would be Kagan recusing herself while Scalia stays on.

    This is RIDICULOUS. Impartiality means NOTHING if this is allowed to happen.

    If he is not HOUNDED off the cases, then something is wrong with everyone else, too.

    Letting Scalia participate in those cases is making a fool of the entire Supreme Court.

  12. BeccaM says:

    Personally, I think the SOB should be impeached. Thomas, too. The evidence is plain to see that they’re both corrupt and unfit to be judges on the highest court in America — and I tell this to my Congresscritters when I write them.

    I’ve already done so on this issue, too, pointing out how the absolute animus on the part of Scalia is right there to see. He hates gay people. And he doesn’t care. He cares not at all about being impartial either. To him, the law is whatever he feels like saying it is. There is not one micro-gram of honor in the man, no decency.

  13. Butch1 says:

    I can agree to that. ;-)

  14. Sweetie says:

    Scalia needs to recuse himself from any cases involving reality.

  15. Butch1 says:

    He had no business being chosen to sit on the bench. Anita Hill didn’t purger herself under oath; he did. He just got away with it by brow beating the Congress committee with his “Jim Crow” act that he was being “modern day lynched” and the Congress fell for it and all over themselves to kow-tow to him. From that point on they didn’t want to appear looking racist so it was smooth sailing for him.

  16. A reader in Colorado says:

    So, what, we should walk away and not make the case that judges are supposed to be impartial and if they cannot be, should recuse themselves?

    Look, I don’t want to rag on you, Becca. But several times, just today, I’ve seen commenters tell me or others, this is the explanation, or this is the way it works, on whatever the topic under discussion is. And then a silent (move on and give up).


    Not here. I’m tired of the wise, knowing, giving up liberal act.

    I don’t care if Scalia has always flouted the rules of judicial ethics a million times and that we should just give a sartorial nod to reality and move onto the next issue and give up to right wing monster behavior.

    Maybe he has done this a million times. But to talk about how gay sex is like murder and pedophilia, while being a judge to be judging a gay rights case on the Supreme Court, is egregious. To be allowed to do this is EGREGIOUS.

    If there is no recusal here, there are no judicial ethics whatsoever. For anything.

    This deserves a monster protest, complete with months long tent cities if this is allowed.

  17. BeccaM says:

    I don’t think there’s been a case or issue yet where Scalia, upon being asked about it, hasn’t made it clear he’s already decided how he’ll vote before any evidence or testimony has been presented.

  18. jsmithutes says:

    I will bet a booger that tony scalia secretly likes it in the bottom. Jim

  19. Blogvader says:

    Are we supposed to be surprised?

  20. Bluestocking says:

    All you really need to know about Antonin Scalia can be summarized in two words…

    Opus Dei (he’s thought to be a member).

    It’s a pity that his “strict Constitutionalist” views apparently don’t extend to the First Amendment…

  21. A reader in Colorado says:


  22. karmanot says:

    Socks are usually abandoned after the age of 21 when one does one’s own laundry.

  23. A reader in Colorado says:

    Thank you! Someone, SOMEONE to state the obvious!

  24. A reader in Colorado says:

    I shouldn’t say this in terms of the swiveling eye problem, but socks are not needed.

  25. A reader in Colorado says:

    But, we can’t call for Scalia’s recusal?

    If you can’t be impartial on a matter before the court, your responsibility when you’re a Supreme Court Justice is TO RECUSE YOURSELF!


    He shouldn’t be on the Prop 8 case, he shouldn’t be on ANY GAY RIGHTS CASE. And if necessary his fellow Supreme Court Justices should be protested for allowing people with strong prejudicial views FROM BEING INVOLVED AT ALL.

    Why are they not pressuring Scalia to recuse himself? Are they pressuring him to recuse himself?

    Why is this being allowed to happen? Why is this demand for recusal not in this post?

  26. karmanot says:

    Absolutely terrifying.

  27. karmanot says:

    You were on a roll, until that last sentence.

  28. cole3244 says:

    whats really interesting in america is that the affirmative action argument is aimed at minorities when in reality its the whites that have been given affirmative action advantages forever in america, sports is one of the few places that it is getting better but there they have the token whites (basketball) to placate the white fan base.

  29. BeccaM says:

    If masturbation is a mortal sin, then I’d estimate some 95% of humanity is damned.

  30. Scalia’s silliness on masturbation comes from the Catholic hierarchy’s perverted view of sex, which goes back to Augustine in the 3rd/4th century. The celibate old fools made masturbation a mortal sin, not to be confused with onanism, which is masturbation in disobedience of God.

  31. Don Chandler says:

    And afterall, by Scalia’s own reasoning, if we can’t regulate where and when he can disrobe, we would not be able to regulate other of his praticises.

  32. WallyAnti says:

    While I think Scalia is scum, his views aren’t completely arbitrary. He considers his views Aristotelian. His judgement is usually based on what he sees as being for the practical good of society. He sees sex as being purely for procreation and ignores the physical pleasure and stress relief benefits. Doesn’t surprise me though. He doesn’t look like a man who’s had a good lay in his entire life.

  33. WallyAnti says:

    Scalia logic: If we cannot say homosexuality is immoral, how can we criticize Hitler?

    I just wanted to get Goodwin’s law involved here. I think Scalia might be senile.

  34. penpal says:

    Actually it’s not just tit for tat. Conservatism and bigotry are joined at the hip not out of coincidence, but because both have a central issue at their core: birth right. So-called “fiscal conservatives” know damn well that we are not all born to a level playing field. People like Mitt Romney are groomed for success from day one by way of money (lots of it) and connections. Same goes for Mitt’s children. The idea of “fiscal conservatism” is only a cover to benefit the most wealthy to continue the dynastic fortunes of themselves and their own children at the expense of what’s good for everyone. Screw the poor.

    Bigotry works in the same manner: birth right. Being born white / christian / male / heterosexual is still the ultimate nexus of birth traits that one could be born with in this country. Bigots cling to it because they love the feeling of superiority it lends them when they have little else in the world they can legitimately claim. Democrats believe in equal opportunity, but understand the basic idea that we are not born under equal terms. Republicans find that idea outrageous, which is why urban trust fund managers and backwoods racists can all come together so comfortably under one tent.

  35. So…anything considered to be immoral is fair game to be made criminal? Gluttony is regarded as a sin–or used to be anyway, since it’s become clear that Christianity at least in America has crystallized around a new set of values in which the only important virtues are sexual decorum and voting Republican–so should it be made illegal?

  36. Butch1 says:

    At least they are going to address it and not collectively bury their heads in the sand.

  37. Butch1 says:

    I think the jews are more likely to change with time whilst Scalia and Thomas are more likely to dig their heels in and fight progress with dogma. As for the other two, I don’t know.

  38. cole3244 says:

    conservatism and bigotry are kissing cousins if not joined at the hip, if america can castigate liberals for being too compassionate attacking cons for their bigotry and hate is more than appropriate, to deny the obvious is just as bad as the disease of bigotry aka conservatism.

  39. karmanot says:

    If you get the chance watch the Charlie Rose interview with Scalia. Scalia’s hubris and contempt for civil justice is simply incredible

  40. karmanot says:

    Yep, just imagine all those judges lined up in their birthday suits for their official portrait. I envision Scalia and Thomas being born with grey flannel diapers and neckties ties . However, I think that if the Castro nudie freaks were granted the absolute power of the SCOTUS we would be a scrotum republic. I’m with Naja on this one.

  41. karmanot says:

    Excellent point, which exposes Scalia’s idea of ‘conservative’ to be false and in contradiction to the humanist enlightenment ideas of the Founding Fathers. Scalia is more like a feudalist, whose contempt for civil society and citizenship is barely restrained.

  42. nicho says:

    Clarence Thomas is a dunce.

  43. karmanot says:

    They will never be seen as ‘irrelevant’ Randy, because they have no higher accountability and act with absolute power.

  44. karmanot says:

    Interesting point. Judge Thomas’ blatant corruption, lying about his taxes, and his tooling of high powered lobbyists to suit SCOTUS rulings is proven, common knowledge and yet, absolutely nothing can touch him. It’s a scandal that taints the court and reduces it to ridicule.

  45. Don Chandler says:

    Oh, I see how it is, missy, nudists are tolerable in the Castro but not the halls of justice.

  46. karmanot says:

    What’s passing for conservatism these days is not conservatism, but radicalism in the fascist mode, both culturally and politically. There are few classical conservatives left in this country—-David Frum comes to mind. It is important to distinguish the Chicago School neo-cons from conservationism. Karl Rove, for example, is a fascist not a conservative.

  47. Sweetie says:

    It’s really a feminist tale because Lot, after offering his daughters to be gang-raped, finds himself raped by his daughters.

    Wholesome literature for the entire family.

  48. Mighty says:

    Scalia is filth. He is a conservative activist justice. He uses his place on the court to advance an extremist conservative agenda.

  49. Fifi says:

    “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

    Scalia is truly amoral, to a degree which most people cannot even start to comprehend.

    At core, Scalia is a true Hobbesian. He sees moral judgements and laws as arbitrary choices imposed by a sovereign upon a populace, rather than rules derived from a natural sense of morality true debate and general acquiescence. So, in his world view, it’s totally legit that the state can regulate whatever the fuck it pleases, be it masturbation.

  50. hollywoodstein says:

    Hey, you’re stealing my thunder! Be careful, the god botherers may come out to defend their belief in an all knowing all seeing all powerful sociopathic, mysogynistic, homophobic, invisible GodManBearPigSpaghettiMonster in the sky by clucking their tongues at you. They may even call you small.
    Fact remains without people who believe in dusty books about an invisible tyrannical god we wouldn’t be still fighting this fight over the gays. We would be fixing, not denying global warming. Etc.
    Wasn’t it Richard Viguerie who remarked back in the day that Christians were the largest tract of unharvested votes, and so we got Reagan, and culture wars, etc. The ruling class sure has gotten its money worth out of the bigotry and racism of religion.
    Scalia and the other Opus Dei members believe that the actual body of Jesus H. Christ was dead for three days, resurrected, walked around and talked, and then corporally floated up into the sky and outer space to heaven. I’ve heard him say it himself proudly in person at a cocktail party.
    And he gets to decide how we live our lives.

  51. Naja pallida says:

    Oh dear Goddess, now I have an image of a naked Scalia running down the halls of the Justice Building. DAMN YOU IMAGINATION!

    At least it explains why Lady Justice is blind. Not out of some notion of fairness and equality… she just doesn’t want to have to see this.

  52. karmanot says:

    It can be explained very simply by Catholic doctrine—Virgin birth: No muff roughing.

  53. karmanot says:

    Absolutely Becca. The Court has lost its moral, ethical standing and seems to be little more than a corrupt extension of a lobbying entity.

  54. karmanot says:

    Ahhhhhh run, run!

  55. karmanot says:

    I suspect they will find that it is a matter of State’s rights bigotry ( morality statues ) and let the current mess stand.

  56. colleen2 says:

    I take it that Thomas and Scalia, Roberts and Alito are your notion of “outstanding legal mind(s)”. Because I’m not seeing it. In Scalia’s case I see a full blown sociopath.

  57. karmanot says:

    Three of the Catholic judges are Opus Dei members and will put their personal religious bigotry before civil rights justice.

  58. karmanot says:

    “then states will also lose the right to ban masturbation.” OMG…..What about the effect on job makers? The sock industry will dissapear and the American textile industry will collapse.

  59. Bookbinder says:

    “If you want pro-life, Catholics are a good bet”
    Actually, if you want pro life, Baptists are a far better bet and there are far more of them. Catholics are more supportive of pro-choice than the population as a whole. That’s just your prejudicial stereotyping.
    Why a SCOTUS of Catholics and Jews? Because both systems are extremely legalistic in their approach to life in general and therefore produce some outstanding legal minds.

  60. Sweetie says:

    The court exposed the fact that all three branches of our government are corrupt.

  61. Sweetie says:

    The Lot story is wonderful. God condones incest, drunkenness, rape (not just potential gang rape but two actual rapes resulting in pregnancy). He murders a woman just for disobeying him, which is ripped directly from the Orpheus and Euridice story—with a twist of extra biblical idiocy.

    Supposedly homosexual citizens of Sodom (all the people, young and old, mind you—I guess even the toddlers were raving homosexual rapists and they were delivered via stork since they’re also somehow all male)—were supposed to be interested in gang raping Lot’s daughters which he offered to them like pieces of meat.

    Yes, he is supposed to be the blessed man in that city. He stands for God’s values. Some God.

    That this utter poppycock is still held up today as being highly relevant shows that either people have no idea what the Bible actually says or they’re lunatics. Take your pick.

  62. Sweetie says:

    irrationally and therefore unconstitutionally

  63. Sweetie says:

    No, it’s not the fiction we call conservatism, it’s just bigotry. Bigotry is founded on ignorance and ignorance is the enemy of all people.

  64. BeccaM says:

    What I find amazing is how for anti-gay bigots like Scalia, it’s always about the buttseks and never about muff-diving.

  65. BeccaM says:

    They lost the perception of fairness and impartiality when they interfered with the 2000 presidential election and instituted their partisan judicial coup.

    At this point, it’ll be generations, if ever, before they get it back.

  66. Jay Wayne says:

    Thomas is indeed a RC. The court is currently 6 RC’s and three Jews. The predominance of RC’s is largely attributable to the Reagan/Bush/Shrub administrations using a pro-life litmus test on all nominations since 1980. (If you want pro-life, Catholics are a good bet.)

    Unfortunately now for LGBT Americans, this means that the current cases face a court with 6 Catholics, 5 of them over 60, who grew up in an era when homosexuality was considered in the same category as pedophilia. And to clarify: That is not in any way an overstatement.

    There’s no question that Scalia should recuse himself. There’s also no question that he won’t.

  67. Butch1 says:

    I can only think they will vote on the correct side of history. ( of course, they’ve been known to be idiots before but, with all the states, including mine, that just approved marriage, they would really be foolish to go against the tide especially since DADT has fallen, Obama has won his second term and there are so many other cases approaching the Supreme Court. DOMA is next to fall and it’s only a matter of time. They can dodge it for only so long so I think they may do some heroic rendering by June and then the other cases that reach them will be a no brainer. Perhaps, by then Congress may even drop its case against DOMA; what a waste of tax payer’s money that frivolous lawsuit is.( If Boehner is really looking to slash the budget he could start there and stop his bigotry! ) ;-)

  68. BeccaM says:

    A couple generations ago, a man like Justice Scalia would have had the honor and the shame to know he should resign for so blatantly pre-judging cases, displaying a lack of impartiality and having such overwhelming animus towards plaintiffs and defendants in his court.

  69. Butch1 says:

    I haven’t had lunch yet, what a disgusting thought.

  70. cole3244 says:

    when you have a piece of trash like scalia on the scotus you know america is not a true democracy, this trend started in 1980 with reagan and has continued unabated since, if you believe in the democratic principle of equal rights for all conservatism is your enemy and the enemy of democracy.

  71. Naja pallida says:

    I think I just threw up a little.

  72. Naja pallida says:

    Thomas is Catholic as well, but that certainly isn’t a reason for his narrow-minded viewpoints on everything, he simply hasn’t found a bigoted cause he can’t happily side with, except ones that would affect him personally. There are six Catholics on the court right now, and they’re not all bigots. That being said, Thomas has said that churches should have a more active role in influencing policy, and has repeatedly written about the Establishment Clause in rulings – basically citing that it grants no real rights, it is simply intended to keep the federal government from interfering in religion and nothing more.

    The one saving grace may be that Roberts tends to be a pragmatist when it comes to issues where his name might be used in a historical context. He doesn’t want to become a footnote in text books as the “Roberts court” on the wrong side of history for denying equal rights, when he knows it is only a matter of time, and probably within his lifetime, for public opinion to overrule them anyway. Any vote against equal rights would just make the entire court look like a bunch of fools.

    It really makes me wonder why the court decided to take these cases on in the first place. They’ve put themselves in the strange position of having to decide between their own personal bigotry and real-world equality for millions of Americans. The result will be especially telling, and if it is another partisan down the line vote, it will be yet another hole dug at the bottom of the Marianas Trench that Republican politics has become.

  73. theophrastvs says:

    always been curious about words like “sodomy” when used legally. they’re historically quite vague, of course. it’s originally meant to behave like a citizen of Sodom. it’s quite random when and where it’s consistently meant to mean anal sex. here’s a fun-fact: the common British-ism “(oh) sod-off!” is presumed to be a shortening of “sodomy… off (yerself?)”. anyway, the comedy stylings of Scalia/Thomas will continue to horrify and amuse us for decades to come, i fear.

  74. Don Chandler says:

    Yeah, Scalia should disrobe for this one. Then we’d all see he’s a true blue nudist.

  75. Don Chandler says:

    Yeah, they can concern themselves with your sex life but no way can you be concerned about their wanky panky….no way. Hilarious, but I still don’t want to hear scalia’s answer.

  76. Randy Riddle says:

    Both Scalia and Thomas are problems for the sense of validity that the court has for the public. If the court resorts to partisan politics, it looses the perception that it is fair, impartial and driven by long-term concerns for upholding the Constitution. I think the other justices sense that and are concerned that they’re going to be seen as an irrelevant branch of government that can be steamrolled by money and influence. If Scalia keeps this up (and he probably will), you’ll probably see more “leaks” about the inner debates in the court and the political divisions that are hindering their work, similar to what came out after the Obamacare decision.

  77. Jim Olson says:

    I guess we know how Scalia will rule in the two upcoming gay-rights cases.

  78. Butch1 says:

    Scalia needs to recuse himself from any cases that involve homosexuality. He has proven without a doubt that he is a bigoted moron and cannot listen to a case before him without being prejudiced. It is impossible for him NOT to be. Of course what ever he does his shadow will do so, you can count on Thomas being a second prejudicial vote in that direction. One would think that if anyone could understand prejudice it would be this man. His memory banks have been wiped clean of ever being a black man and now he has turned his back on programs that help the poor, blacks, gays and any second-class citizens. He doesn’t want to remember coming up through those channels. The corporate boys, Roberts and Alito are both Roman Catholic like the bigoted Scalia. ( not sure about Thomas ) I would imagine that will be tugging at their consciences. It shouldn’t be, this is about the law and not the church or religion. I hope they can remember that.

  79. UncleBucky says:


  80. LanceThruster says:

    The student’s response letter made my day. THX.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS