Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A federal appeals court judge laid into Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for his “obsession” with the Court’s Obergefell ruling, which in June granted marriage equality rights to same-sex couples.

"Obergefell seems to obsess him. In a speech at Rhodes College in Memphis, he said that the decision represents the “furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants,” and that “saying that the Constitution requires that practice” — same-sex marriage — “which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that.” The decision, he said, “had nothing to do with the law.”

The suggestion that the Constitution cannot override the religious beliefs of many American citizens is radical. It would imply, contrary to the provision that forbids religious tests for public office, that religious majorities are special wards of the Constitution. Justice Scalia seems to want to turn the Constitution upside down when it comes to government and religion; his political ideal verges on majoritarian theocracy."

Ivytalk wrote:Judge Posner calls them like he sees them.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Judge Posner calls them like he sees them.

Most of the time ... but when it comes to Scalia, Posner has got a pretty noticeable jealous streak.

The two were contemporaries on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. Both were instrumental in the Chicago School of Economics approach to law. Both were marked for greatness early in their career.

But Scalia got to the Supreme Court, and Posner stalled at the 7th Circuit, passed over many times for the high court.

The Posner/Scalia relationship is one of the great dramas in US law, like a Shakespearean drama. Posner sees himself as MacDuff. Look out. Posner's not done yet.

Posner does twistsa lot of what Scalia is saying and has said about Obergefell. Anyway, as a counterpoint to Posner:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-mem ... -ed-whelan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnStOnge wrote:Bottom line is that the Constitution doesn't really require that States recognize relationships between homosexuals as "marriage." It's another thing we call "Constitutional" when what it really is is an edict by the Judicial Oligarchy.

JoltinJoe wrote:one of the great dramas in US law, like a Shakespearean drama

89Hen wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:one of the great dramas in US law, like a Shakespearean drama

Good God, I thought I was a

JoltinJoe wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Bottom line is that the Constitution doesn't really require that States recognize relationships between homosexuals as "marriage." It's another thing we call "Constitutional" when what it really is is an edict by the Judicial Oligarchy.

Most people who rag on Scalia haven't read any of his opinions or dissents.

He has stated, innumerable times, that how a state defines marriage is no federal concern. Who can marry under state law, Scalia asserts, is a state-law matter.

But he gets criticized all the time as if he's a "religious cleric" claiming that traditional marriage is, in fact, required by the constitution. Too many people think if you hold that the constitution does not require gay marriage, that is the equivalent of holding that the constitution forbids gay marriage.

In many of his decisions/dissents, Scalia has said that the Supreme Court is equally powerless to invalidate state laws permitting gay marriage, as it is to require gay marriage.

But the press never reports those aspects of his decisions/dissents.

JoltinJoe wrote:Hey, I didn't say he was right, Cleets, or that there aren't persuasive arguments to the contrary.

All I said was that Scalia's actual thoughts are very frequently distorted.

Even on abortion, Scalia has consistently held it is a matter left to the states and presents no federal concerns.

In one of his dissents in an abortion case, he even specifically rejected that the term "person" assured of rights by the 5th and 14th Amendment could not be construed to apply to a fetus -- an argument near and dear to many pro-lifers, because that would mean the constitution barred abortion.

JoltinJoe wrote:Hey, I didn't say he was right, Cleets, or that there aren't persuasive arguments to the contrary.

All I said was that Scalia's actual thoughts are very frequently distorted.

Even on abortion, Scalia has consistently held it is a matter left to the states and presents no federal concerns.

In one of his dissents in an abortion case, he even specifically rejected that the term "person" assured of rights by the 5th and 14th Amendment could not be construed to apply to a fetus -- an argument near and dear to many pro-lifers, because that would mean the constitution barred abortion.