Comments on: A look back at Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, nine years later

By: Justice Scalia insists he's never expressed his views on marriage equality

Justice Scalia insists he's never expressed his views on marriage equality — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:55:30 +0000

[...] statement seems at odds with his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional. In the opinion Scalia wrote: “State laws [...]

By: Justice Scalia Compares Homosexuality to Murder | İSTİHBARAT SAHASI

Justice Scalia Compares Homosexuality to Murder | İSTİHBARAT SAHASI — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:14:48 +0000

[...] of a different magnitude. It is a view that he put forth, with characteristic acerbity, in his dissent to the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court for the first time outlawed state [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:42:58 +0000

Trust me, Romney has assigned not ever Justice Robert Bork to oversee Supreme Court nominations. If Romney is elected, he will appoint hard core consersavtives to replace Ginsberg, Kennedy and possibly Breyer. Then Lawrence v. Texas will be overturned and Bowers v. Hardwick reinstated. That means gays can be sent to prison for engaging in sex and denied employment as "potential felons". How soon we forget the past.

By: Don

Don — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:45:04 +0000

That's why I knew that the ACA would be upheld; I read all the conservative legal web sites. They were all terrified that it would be overturned. The insurance companies were pissing and moaning about possibly losing 30 million new customers. Prof. Volokh at UCLA said; "If you think the reputation of the Court was diminished after Bush v. Gore, you haven't seen anything yet if the Court overturns the ACA.

By: arjay1951@mac.com

arjay1951@mac.com — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:40:47 +0000

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
–Ralph Waldo Emerson
Sometimes quoted as
"A foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of small minds…"
Scalia undoubtedly know the quote and would be unafraid to use it if necessary. But since he feels unbound by precedent or even canons of judicial ethics,, why should he feel bound by a dissent?
And please, let us not get into a debate over whether his mind is "small" or "little.". Bottom line is that he can do what he wants.

By: sfbob

sfbob — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:35:45 +0000

Scalia has proven, repeatedly, that he won't let a simple thing like consistency get in the way of his reaching the conclusion he prefers, any more than he'd let precedent or the Constitution get in the way of his favored outcomes.

By: AnonyGrl

AnonyGrl — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:31:28 +0000

Let us in the rest of the sane world know if you need some, Scottie. I am sure we would be happy to smuggle some in to you.

By: MFargo

MFargo — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:26:30 +0000

Earlier this month, the Vatican attacked U.S. nuns for teaching that masturbation is useful, same sex marriage helpful, divorce often necessary. The Vatican said ""Sister Farley [and her book] manifests a defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law. This approach is not consistent with authentic Catholic theology."

Heard that before? If we can get our judiciary who are Catholic to accept that same sex marriage is as much a cultural norm as divorce then we can breathe more easily. However, as Judge Walker pointed out, we're much more of a minority and are at the whims of the majority. (Although perhaps arguing that masturbation AND divorce are culturally acceptable, but with some of these judges, I wouldn't want to presume.)

By: Bill S.

Bill S. — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:24:39 +0000

The dismissal is a decision on the merits because it was brought to the court under mandatory appellate review, not discretionary certiorari.

I believe that Congress has since changed the law and that now all cases are brought to the Supreme Court under discretionary certiorari (i.e. the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases it wants to hear), other than what is listed in the Constitution as the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (i.e. the types of cases that go directly to the Supreme Court without going to any lower court).

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:45:43 +0000

Of course half the time he rants against the other justices and some things have a clear sarcastic undertone. He isn't actually serious about the last paragraph. That part drips with sarcasm and disdain. Which is why he will say that he was only speaking hypothetically or something like that.