Justice Scalia: Why Should Judges Dictate Natural Law?

[TriaMaxwell]

Anton Scalie needs to stop confusing natural law with his imaginary friend's rules.

[teoeo]

@TriaMaxwell What do you mean by that? I personally think "natural law" is silly, but you obviously think it is based on something other than God. I am curious to know what that is.

[irrefudiate]

Who in the hell appointed this dumbass to the SCOTUS? No wonder their rulings are so peculiar.

[kemar207]

@irrefudiate Reagan

[nicky2coats]

Fuck the people. We hire smart individuals to decide natural jurisprudence for us. Don't be naive, Justice.

[ILikeTheThingsIDo]

People used to think that blacks were naturally inferior to whites and that owning them and teaching them christianity was the way to "save" them. Natural law is often found to be abhorrent a hundred years later. Scalia is going by the argument that if enough people believe it, then it must be true or right.

[kemar207]

@ILikeTheThingsIDo Isn't that how democracy works? 

[ILikeTheThingsIDo]

@kemar207 That's how tyranny of the majority works. If the majority decrees you should die, does that make it right?

The German people all got whipped up into frenzy, the majority either supported the nazis or allowed what they did to happen. That is tyranny of the majority and the constitution protects against it by granting all people all rights and a supreme court to insure those rights aren't violated.

[kemar207]

@ILikeTheThingsIDo In theory, you are right that law and the constitution are supposed to protect us. But let's not kid ourselves. People with power do as they please. Laws and consitutions are diluted and bastardized as a matter of routine through the politics of the day and the agendas of the judges and lawmakers who are supposed to be applying it. I'm not saying it's right. It's actually disgraceful and disgusting, but it happens. Power corrupts.

[ILikeTheThingsIDo]

@kemar207 Well, reality never lives up to what is considered in theory. This is the promise made in the constitution and I'll be damned if I'll let them dodge that responsibility. It'll never be perfect, but that's not a reason to sit by and let it happen.

[USAHistory1]

"Originalism" is no barrier to subjectivity. In the two recent gun cases Scalia took the power out of elected officials hands and gave it to the courts._______________________­______

conservative judges Posner (In Defense of Looseness) H. Wilkinson (Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law, Virginia Law Review) have accused Scalia of doing exactly what he rails against here.

[MamaMario13]

why r the police such perverts that they will break in to two gays having sex and arrest them?

[tgard27]

Scalia can kiss my ass, him and his 20 dictionaries from 1800. Yeah, he reaffirms marriage as a fundamental right, but let's not extend that fundamental right to those who do not comport to our moral views. Regulating morals, kiss my ass.

[vidhead85]

Scalia is crazy! Simply, why should everything be put to a vote? I'd like to put Scalia's freedom of speech to a vote!

[Porojukaha]

@vidhead85 oh, yeah, putting it to a vote, that would be stupid, because then you wouldnt be able to pass your minority agenda on the rest of the world, would you fag? Go home and blow your partner fool.

[vidhead85]

@Porojukaha And that's what you and those who share your view of gay men and lesbians would like to do, impose your will on us to stop us from marrying, adopting and living an ordinary civic life like everyone else is able to. To have the safety net for my family that all straight couples have for theirs. Marriage is a basic Civil Right, and therefore no one should have the 'right' to vote on the rights of a suspect class. It's simply tyranny imposed by the majority to do so

[whoo689]

We give these cases to judges BECAUSE we see no reason to waste any more time with legislatures and executive branches that won't ever listen and feel a need to put a check on their abusive practices.

Scalia is loved by the Right simply because he's one of the key promoters of their pet causes on the bench. They could care less about "originalism." For if they actually BELIEVED in real originalism, they'd know damn well the founders weren't fucking Bible-thumping nutjobs!

[whoo689]

LOL. So Justice Scalia is eschewing his responsibility as a judge to be the last resort check on federal and legislative misuse and abuse of power?? What a joke! This guy is a fraud! He's not even that originalist, either. Thomas is way better in that field.

He's just another phony conservative judicial activist! He belongs in Congress under the "R" label than on the SCOTUS.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 The Founders put clauses like "no establishment of religion" in the First Amendment for a REASON. And to claim that government and religion should be almost buddy-buddy, except for an "official" state religion, is ludicrous! Government and religion should be SEPARATE. When you mix the two, it's usually not very pretty in the end. What good ever comes from meshing gov't and religion? The kind of religion that is connected to governments historically is always the most radical.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 You very RARELY, if ever, see liberal religious groups that promote freedom and love and tolerance getting in bed with gov't.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 If Scalia was a TRUE originalist, he'd be for states' rights in ALL instances, not just when it favors his political ideology. He'd tell President Bush and his administration, "You can't do that!" when they tried on numerous occasions to violate the Constitution in the name of "security." I'm pretty sure the last thing the Founders wanted or wrote into the Constitution was an imperial presidency or preemptive war. The president isn't given much constitutional war powers at all.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 The only main constitutional "war power" for the president is the power to decide where and when the troops attack the enemies that Congress has already declared war on. I'm referring to, of course, the concept of him being "commander in chief", which some neocons have twisted around to mean "He can do whatever he wants as long as we're at war in the name of defense." THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS AT ALL! Many significant founders HATED standing armies, so why would they support this?

[whoo689]

@whoo689 If you ask me, it's time to END standing armies. They're clearly more trouble than they're worth. We don't NEED to be constantly ready for war. I mean, why do we do it? Is the world REALLY that unsafe? I think not. Besides, we're just creating more enemies with each new boondoggle.

How about bringing ALL the troops home and having them secure AMERICA for a change? Fuck this global hegemony nonsense. We don't need to be everywhere at all times. Let's fortify America instead.

[Porojukaha]

@whoo689 OMG LOL have you ever been to a foreign country? YES the world IS THAT DANGEROUS. Heres a short list of counrties that would probably IMMEDIATLY invade us if we got rid of our standing army. China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea. America would cease to exist in a matter of years were it not for our standing army. Do you really want to learn to speak Chinese? I dont. A standing army in teh hands of a benevolent, peaceful democracy is the only way to ensure world peace.

[Porojukaha]

@whoo689 As long as humans remain imperfect and selfish there will always be a need for protection. Heres the same argument on a local level. Police. Have they outlived their usefulness? Should we get rid of them? Would you really feel safe knowing that there were no police and that our government had no guns? and do you really think that the drug dealers and criminals would get rid of their guns? not a chance in hell. And as long as criminals have guns, police need them too.

[vidhead85]

@whoo689 I disagree with some points. The world is pretty unsafe if you ask me. A nation that is not ready for war will not be ready when war happens, whether it's abroad or something bad happens here. Readiness is key. I do believe that we have to fortify America but also be willing to help our allies whenever possible

[SHIFTYMCSHIFT21]

He is very correct. Judges should not decide such political matters. BUT if the constitutionality of an already made decision in legislature is brought to the courts, then they should decide. That is their job. To interpret what ALREADY HAS BEEN VOTED ON. So let's do the right thing and amend the constitution to protect everyone in a very plain and clear language, and have the court uphold that. OH WAIT! It is called the 14th (among other) amendment! So do your damn job after the fact, Scalia...

[PowerPlantEngineer]

Corporatoins exist because the people granted them the ability to exist. The rights and responsibilities of corporations come from the people. Therefore the people can limit the rights of corporations.

No one is stripping any person of any fucking rights. All these people can stand on the corner, get on TV, get online, get anywhere and say fucking anything they want. Do you fucking grasp that? So no one -- right or wrongly -- stopped their speech at fucking all.

[PowerPlantEngineer]

This guy is right - but then he himself has legislated from the bench He voted to go contrary to law, and allow corporations to give unlimited money to politicians, because that is free speech. Yet corporations are creatures of the state -- they are constructs of statute. They exist because laws say they can. Why can't laws put limits on what they spend on politicians? Scalia loves legislating from the bench, when it's to his advantage - like Gore v Bush.

[etsneroj]

@PowerPlantEngineer, the Citizens United case is not a good example of legislating from the bench. McCain Feingold violated the First Amendment. Corporations, by the way, are not just the Exxons of the world. They are also little mom & pop operations all over the country. They are trade, labor and social organizations. It would violate the free association clause to strip individuals of their rights because they associate through the corporate form.

[PowerPlantEngineer]

@etsneroj no one is stripping anyone of rights. Those little mom and pop places can speak all they want all day, every day, about what ever the fuck they want.

How is that stopping their speech. Are you retarded? They cand fucking speak from the roof tops, to the oceans, on your trailer, from midnight to noon, and from noon to midnight. They can write books and make movies and be on the internet -- anything they fucking want. So no, retard, thats not stopping them from speaking

[etsneroj]

@PowerPlantEngineer, your comment should have been: "I haven't read the Citizens United case, and I don't understand First Amendment case law. In fact, I haven't really been following the discussion here. Could you explain to me how limiting the political speach of small corporations, as well as large corporations, is unconstitutional?" I would have explained it to you, but you called me "retarded" so you look it up. Right after you go f*ck yourself.

[dexta32084]

@doutonight

How do you figure? Isn't that what the Constituiton and the Bill of Rights is at it's core, a majority that voted on the rights of everyone else? The Constituiton was put in place by a large majority to begin with. And the super majority comprised of 3/4 of the states decided they would put safeguards in place to prevent a smaller, future simple majority from overriding the views of a future minority that was not as virtuous as them.

[hoagyandslim]

he moves his hands like he is fliiping a pizza.... really sad that america has to have crap like this as our supreme leaders... I would rather have bozo the clown and ronald mcdonald on the supreme court

[321lawc]

@hoagyandslim He mops the floor with morons like you all the time.

[hoagyandslim]

@321lawc yes after he puts the pizza in the oven, then he mops the pizza grease off the floor..... He is just a fat jerk who kissed the asses of Ronnie Reagan's friends in the cable industry and then as a reward for all the Itilians who voted for Reagan, he appointed him to this do-nothing government job..... I remember people used to talk about how smart he was, but now everybody knows he is just another meatball

[321lawc]

@hoagyandslim Your liberal tears are delicious. I will use them to relish the pizza at Scalia's mansion party.

[hoagyandslim]

@321lawc Liberal?!? I think liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans are all the same... all a load of crap should flush them all down the toilet..... but hey some people are still dumb enough to actually like them.. go figure

[Bryanstephenkerr]

@hoagyandslim Scalia is a genius. Your an idiot

[hoagyandslim]

@Bryanstephenkerr a genius? what makes you say that? he seems like just another dirty lying scheister with his hands out for a bribe

[fede2]

"natural law" is a spook. people interpret nature as the please and atempt to bridge the is/ought dichotomy based on their own assumptions. nature does not dictate morality.

[Mattyb88ful]

the US is a decent place to live because it is a LIBERAL democracy. liberal as in not left or Democratic but liberal in the sense that the majority cannot do whatever it wants. the minority have basic rights that have to be protected. however, if this pig Scalia had his way, it is clear that America would become a tyranny of the majority.

[socalcraigster]

@Mattyb88ful - your ad hominem attacks against Scalia just go to show your argument lacks substance. Democracy involves people that elect lawmakers to enact change by legislation provided its not unconstitutional. It is not a judge's place to enact change for the ENTIRE country by judicial fiat if the democractic process can do it.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? please explain.

[LifterWill]

Homosexual sodomy .. I can see that this ASSHOLE is for Equality. NOT.

[fdny9682]

Dude what he's saying is that the decision is not his at all. He was attacking it he;s saying gay rights arent for him to decide, its for the individual

[marsCubed]

Limited debate needs to be bust open.

Women should decide, not based on law, natural or otherwise, what they do with their reproduction.

People love whom they fall in love with.

some issues are not up for being forced onto people by state or men in wigs.

Govt responsibility is to balance the economy, healthcare, education etc, It can't even get that right for the corps lobby and bribes.

Get profiteering corps and religious bigots off our bodies!

Use the law to shut them up instead.

[BOOLsheet]

where can we see more of this?

[larrygentry]

No one is asking judges to determine morality. We're asking you to protect the Republic form of government and not let the masses trample over the rights of minorities. Should we have let people vote on whether to end slavery? Let women have the vote? End segregation? Legalize interracial marriage?

[ProNorden]

Scalia understands and opposes the widespread problem of 'judicial tyranny' better than just about anyone.

[ProNorden]

Scalia is right as always. We need more Scalia videos in circulation. He's the best Supreme Court judge of the 20th and (so far) 21st centuries.

[efex2007]

the text of the european and south american constitutions generally regulate the main contemporary problems, or set forth principles to solve them, so there is not much room for judicial creativity.

I couldn't avoid noticing that he shakes his hands like seinfeld's george constanza. . . funny

[jbourget32]

I would hope that Scalia learned at least something at Harvard Law School, like perhaps a justified way to interpret the Constitution. If he doesn't feel especially qualified to do his job, maybe he should resign.

[thane17]

I don't know whether Scalia learned his interpretation of the constitution from Harvard Law or from his own reading but his answer was that it is not the courts place to determine Natural Law and that is a constitutional answer. The constitution doesn't grant power to the courts to make those decisions. So in fact its rare to find justice who know his job so well.

[zoticus1]

questioning the status quo is more enlightening then following it.

you have much to learn.

[thane17]

People need to be careful about giving the gov. too much power. Its seems all well and good when we allow them to usurp additional power to give us what we want but too often they use that very same power we never should have given them to, to take everything away.

[thane17]

Scalia is brilliant but it erks me every time I hear someone call our Republic a Democracy. And in the context of what he was saying it was only more important he got it right. Democracy is mob rule where 51% of folks can molest the other 49%. And while thats happening today in some regard it couldn't have happened under the limited gov. of our founding, except in rare instances like slavery which hadn't been abolished yet.

[Slug99]

If you think Democracy always means a 50% majority rule you're a moron. Secondly, I'd rather prefer a system where the majority can oppress the minority than a system where the minority can oppress the majority, the latter implies gross inequality in political power and it's present in many places in the world.

[thane17]

Democracy doesn't always intend for mob rule but it allows for it. And considering the folks who are in gov. it almost always results that way.

And while I of course agree the majority rule is prefered over minority rule I'm not about to settle for either.

[humanist7117]

There is no thing as natural law.

[Mastikator]

No! The elite must decide what is right and wrong for the people!!!11 Normal people can't think for themselves!!!11111

[village1diot]

Wow! A conservative that made a logical and valid point. Hard to come by these days.

I hate agreeing with anyone on the right, but what he said made total sense.

[kenandkids]

it's somewhat funny that so few of you understand what he said.

[freesk8]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The judiciary is supposed to help preserve our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property from the assault that naturally occurs from the tyranny of the majority.

[FurryAR]

Democracy is two wolves deciding not to starve.

[freesk8]

Two wolves in a democracy would find themselves deadlocked a lot! :)

They might also have a very aggressive foreign policy! :)

Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, unless you consider all the others that have been tried from time to time.

He also said that the best argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter.

The Greeks thought of democracy as the rule of the stupid. The only problem is that the rule by the elite is worse.

[FurryAR]

At least they would lay waste to classic libertarian strawmen.

Apparently the Greeks preceded them in turning adolescence into philosophy.

[freesk8]

None of what I wrote was a strawman argument.

Democratic majorities do NOT always do what is moral.

Democracy is flawed, but it is the lesser of evils.

And most voters are amazingly ignorant.

All of what I said is true, and you said nothing that disproves my comments.

[FurryAR]

Your fable comparing the democracy to predation qualifies as a strawman whether you're willing to own up to it or not.

Voters tend to be ignornant, but I prefer the honestly ignorant to those who share their uninformed thoughts in a narcissistic bid to feign cognizance. It's as conceited as it is platitudinous.

I needn't disprove your fallacies. They do a fine enough job forfeiting any pretentions to validity alone. That is NOT the judiciary's duty, your civil libertarian fantasies aside.

[freesk8]

When the voters in California violated gays and lesbians' right to marry via prop 8, that was a great example of the majority violating individual and minority rights. Want more? History has hundreds of such examples.

Slavery in the US South, the democratic rise of Adolf Hitler...

All I am saying is that democracy is not perfect. It is merely a tool that should be used if it, on balance, advances the protection of liberty and justice.

But if democracy is your religion, we may as well quit.

[FurryAR]

You labor under the delusion that "rights" are a universal and indisputable constant that require no assent and power coupling between majorities and minorities, which despite the rhetoric both sides in such arguments are never constant.

Please list your hundreds of platitudes, for all they especially lambaste democracy. History is also ripe with those resistant to democratic rule ushering in worse regimes under the banners of "liberty and justice."

But if false absolutes are your religion...

[freesk8]

Natural Rights ARE universal. They do not come FROM government. Instead, they come BEFORE government, as a logical result of the assumption that we own our own bodies and lives. Good governments defend those rights. Bad ones violate them. Any majority that violates the rights of any minority, or any individual, is acting unjustly.

Democracy is a "lesser of evils" kind of thing. It is useful for keeping politicians from getting too evil and corrupt. But democracy is not the ultimate goal.

[FurryAR]

Natural Rights are purely conceptual. No rights mean anything at all without power to back them up. Period. There is no justice implied by nature itself, until revelation is offered as a source, which won't apply to the irreligious.

What is and is not considered a right only has practical significance when societies come to an understanding and prioritize.

Democracy is only not the ultimate goal for the same reason that clean fusion is not the ultimate goal in energy production.

[freesk8]

Natural rights are as conceptual as the premise of self-ownership. Any violation of them is a violation of the sovereignty of and respect for the individual.

The legit purpose of govt is the defense of natural rights. Those that do not defend these rights are less legitimate and less good.

If rights came FROM govts, then there would be no wrong in violating them. Govt would dictate what they were, and we could not complain when govt hurt or stole from peaceful people.

[FurryAR]

Yes, they are both concepts. That's why they have no value without a source of might, such as a government, to force their recognition.

Ultimately, how rights are defined depends on a agreements between individuals acting as a collective. Appealing to legal common ground is the one secure objective safeguard against lapsing into invalidating fallacies of inarguable transcendental righteousness.

Rights precede governments, but they have no worth until people agree to abide by their standards.

[freesk8]

Natural Rights have value even if the majority do not support them. You are right that it is better if rights are defended, but even if they are not, they exist.

Otherwise, how would we know an injustice was being done by the govt? If "agreements between individuals acting as a collective" were the only important thing, and that collective did not recognize a particular natural right, that would not be justice, and that would not make the natural right disappear.

[FurryAR]

Say, you look like a dyed-in-the-art-deco Randroid. Maybe you could explain to me the bug up your craw over the rights of homosexuals to marry being violated being any more valid than people claiming a lack of health-care constitutes a human rights violation?

See how easy it is to hastily justify a position by articulating it in the language of "rights" and "freedom"?

The loudest complaints of "tyranny of the majority" are by those who just want a tyranny of their pet minority.

[freesk8]

Rights come from self-ownership. One of those rights is liberty, which is the right to do as you please as long as you are not significantly harming the rights of others. Calling your partnership a marriage harms no one else, therefore it is your right to do so because of your right to liberty.

Health care is not a right, because someone has to earn the money to provide it. To make it a "right" would be to take someone else's money.

And yes, I agree with Ayn Rand about 95% of the time.

[FurryAR]

You seem ill-educated about what marriage constitutes in America. It is not simply a matter of nomenclature and social mores. It entitles people to tax breaks, state support, prioritized attention, and various privileges at public expense (directly or indirectly). Therefore, by your own philosophical logic, the public DOES have every right to regulate and define it as a collective interest and institution.

Personally, I'm against state-sponsored marriage of anyone for this reason.

[freesk8]

Yep, I agree with Rand about 95% of the time.

Natural rights are negative. The right to Liberty means you may not be PREVENTED from doing whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another significantly. Gays marrying each other is like this.

But a right TO health care is a positive thing. It can't be a right because someone else has to produce the health care products and services, and you would violate their rights by taking it from them.

The individual is the ultimate minority.

[FurryAR]

Again, gays marrying is NOT "like this" according to your arguements because marriage as it stands brings with it entitlements to the labor, conduct, and queuing of others.

That is, if you're actually bothering to define "hurting another significantly" with some iota of consistency versus whatever's convenient for your emotions.

Minority status is not a sufficient qualifier for rectitude or innocence. It's feasible for a minority to wield power selfishly to violate the "rights" of many.

[freesk8]

Marriage is that most beautiful of contracts between individuals concerning love or domestic partnership. The terms of each marriage are different, and set by the individuals involved. We have the right to contract, which means that as long as we harm no rights (significantly) we get to set the terms of the marriage contract, and we get to decide with whom (as long as they are of legal age to enter contracts) we engage.

No govt may justly interfere with those rights, even between gays.

[FurryAR]

Your aesthetic value of marriage is completely irrelevant to the argument. Contracts may vary, but with a state-sanctioned license come automatic, consistent reliefs/entitlements that you have yet to deny exist (and cannot refute, since it would be proving that black is white).

You are still evading the real point to preach pathos-riddled ideology.

So yeah, government can justly interfere with those "rights", even between gays, since they are granted at the expense and consent of the public.

[freesk8]

The state has no right to sanction marriage. To say it does implies that they may veto our choice of partner, or dictates the terms of our marriage contracts. But it may not, even if it claims to be able to.

The majority has no right to force it's marriage standards on peaceful individuals. To do so would violate the very principles of liberty that this country was founded on and which animate our Const and D of I.

[FurryAR]

Almost a whole month, and no address or rebuke of the real points.

You're still confusing "marriage" with free association. The state absolutely, according to legal rule, has the right to dictate the circumstances of marriage as it involves the mandatory support and protection of the public. Giving government that power has nothing to do with the terms of a relationship, unless its so shallow as to necessitate mass approval.

[freesk8]

@FurryAR You are right in that I see marriage as a free association.

Though legal, the authority to regulate it is not moral.

"The Public" is no coherent entity, and it's support is not required for any marriage to continue.

Marriage has contract terms, and violation of those terms is an issue that courts must adjudicate.

Child abandonment laws and the like cover the responsibilities of divorcing parents to care for children.

But govt has no right to license marriage. Licensure is permission.

[FurryAR]

By your own philosophy, said individuals are not acting peacefully, since they are demanding the financial support (the property), the contractual expediencies, and the social privileges that all influence how the majority gets to behave, how it dispenses the products of its labor, how it must apply its power, and how it must be affected by the entitlements bestowed.

(BTW, the "D of I" is not law and has not bearing the same arena as this discussion of rights as they exist under the law).

[freesk8]

@FurryAR You are right that married people who demand money from the state by virtue of being married are not acting peacefully. Marriage should not be subsidized by the state. Eliminate all such benefits and "social privileges" and we keep the right to determine whom we marry.

You're right that the D of I has no force in law, but it DOES begin to describe the political philosophy that is the foundation for our govt.

In many cases, "the law is a ass." I care what's moral, not so much legal.

[FurryAR]

I also love how you tack on the little "significantly" adverb to clarify that you do belief under certain circumstances these precious and allegedly inalienable rights can be curtailed.

Of course, these are based on how much they resonate with your own subjective value of said rights instead of anything meaningful.

How convenient. The rights you treasure are sacred, but if another person's priorities have to be undermined for your peace of mind, fuck em'.

[freesk8]

Let's try to keep it civil, my friend. The f-bomb is unnecessary between friends.

I use "significantly" because minor things like farting in public harm others.  But we have to draw the line somewhere, because rational people see that making farting in public illegal is absurd. The harm of being "farted at" is not signt.

I think that you and I would agree 95% of the time on what is signt.

So, exactly how does a particular gay marriage harm YOU significantly?

No signt harm, no prohibition.

[FurryAR]

Vulgar language for vulgar ideas, like ideological frailty and logical incoherency. Avoiding criticism within the frame of one's own beliefs with normative qualifiers that try to comport reason to the person, versus the person to reason, is incoherent and frail (vulgar). Banning public farting is absurd, but not deliberately farting on somebody. That's harassment. Likewise, banning homosexuality is absurd, but banning systems that mandate not only approval, but support is not.

[freesk8]

@FurryAR I don't advocate any support for any married couple.

I only advocate allowing people to decide whom they marry, and eliminating all subsidies (such as tax breaks) to the institution.

I seek not any govt system that implies approval, and I defend the rights of any individual to hold the view that gay marriage is immoral. Instead, I want marriage to be returned to the church, secular, individual, family level, and taken from the govt level. I seek deregulation of marriage.

[FurryAR]

I already offered my personal objection to gay marriage, which is that it's marriage as sponsored and supported by the state. The "gay" element is of no particular trouble for me, but the "marriage" component is of great significance. Two wrongs don't make a right, even for equality's sake.

But, then again, what makes "significantly" objectionable is that it lacks universality. Others can just as easily claim that making you pay for their health care is not a significant harm.

[freesk8]

@FurryAR So can we agree that the govt ought to get out of the business of licensing and subsidizing marriage?

Forcing me to pay for the health care of others is theft, even if I only wind up paying $10. Significant or not, theft is theft.

[Albyiscool]

@freesk8

And slavery was ended by a Constitutional amendment put to a vote in Congress.

Hilter also suspended his nation's bill of rights.

But that is why the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Its supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It is based on that document that there is no "right" to marriage, becase the Constitution does not say there is one.

[freesk8]

I agree that the USA is a republic, but regarding your last sentence, please re-read the 9th amendment. The enumeration of rights in the Const shall not deny or disparage others retained by the people. Indeed, the purpose of the const is to defend indiv liberty, and it is an individual right (under liberty) to choose one's marriage partner.

The Constitution grants only limited powers to govt, and explicitly denies others. It does not grant to the feds the authority to regulate marriage.

[schnookypoodle]

@freesk8

So the only thing we both agree on is that the feds shouldn't regulate marriage. But that means that the states should be allowed to. Ipso facto, there cannot be a fundamental right to marriage without the federal government intervening, because the 10th amendment and 9th amendment allow the people of each state to decide their own standards.

[freesk8]

Marriage is left to the states under the Const., but all state laws must conform to the limitations of the 14th amendment (since the bill of rights applies to state laws as well as fed) which defends the right to liberty as well as equal protection under the law. I think this bans discriminating against LGBT folks in the area of marriage.

And there is also the ethical issue. States SHOULD defend fundamental individual rights like liberty, even if not required to by the fed. Const.

[socalcraigster]

@Albyiscool -the 13th Amendment prohibited both slavery and indentured servitude throughout the United States.

You misunderstand the Constitution. Just because something is not mentioned in it, does not mean tthat it is prohibited. It was created by the majority to protect the minority from future majorities changing laws to suit the majority.

THe United States is a representative democracy.

[socalcraigster]

Certain rights were not mentioned by the founders (marriage, right to procreate) because those are obvious. There is no all encompassing right to private.

Each state has its own sovereignty which means each colony then state have the police power - to regulate the health,safety,wefare and morals of its own citizenry provided the law(s) are not unconstitutional. Throughout history, lawmakers have regulated what people can do with their bodies- incest, prostitution. Abortion is no different.

[Albyiscool]

@socalcraigster

No, if it were a democracy, it would vote on everything. The Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of "democracy" because it meant mob rule to them.

Its true that the Constitution is meant to protect the minority from the majority, but that is not democracy. It was also meant to protect the people and the states from the federal government.

[socalcraigster]

@Albyiscool - So citizens don't vote for their representatives in COngress. the President and so-forth? Is that what you are trying to say? I know it is not a true democracy where every person votes on everything.

[Albyiscool]

@socalcraigster

Um, no. Obviously not. That is the essence of a republic, maybe an indirect democracy, but certainly not a full-fledged, direct democracy.

[socalcraigster]

@Albyiscool - so what is your point? Actually, I get your point. This is a representative democracy and the founders designed a Constitution to protect the minority from the majority in power. THat is why the Constitution specifies two ways (both difficult) to enact change for all the states. Are you commenting on this vid?

[Albyiscool]

@socalcraigster

Honestly, I don't even know anymore. Someone responds to one comment, prompting another, then another reply and so on.

[freesk8]

That is not what "natural law" means in this context.

You are talking about the law of the jungle.

There are several conceptions of natural law, but I suggest that the one that is in play here is as follows:

It is natural that each individual is the sole owner of his or her own life. It is not justified by the human condition that some people should rule over others without consent.

A logical result of this "self-evident truth" is our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property.

[ukulelectric]

Judges are there to do whatever we tell them.  it they decide to do whatever they like then we are living in a dictatorship

[freesk8]

We do not live in a democracy, though. A pure democracy is every bit as much of a dictatorship to the peaceful individual who wants to live differently, as is a military junta.

Democracy is illegitimate when it violates individual rights to life, liberty and property. The function of the judiciary is to force the majority to go through the difficult process of changing the Constitution if they want to violate individual rights, thus slowing down this bad process.

[blackiron60]

We've never had a "pure" democracy so how the hell do you know this?

[freesk8]

There are millions of examples of majorities violating the rights of minorities and individuals.

Slavery in the US is just one.

Jim Crow laws...

etc.

[drawnhere]

"Homosexual sodomy?" What a fuckhead this guy is.

[liber8me]

sodomy is used to describe the act of anal intercourse you idiot - he was specifically talking about homosexuals - not heterosexual couples who have anal sex.

[drawnhere]

No shit, really, brainiac?

The point is that right wing idiots like himself typically use such terminology in an attempt to marginalize others.

The word, "homosexual" is used intentionally, rather than the word, "gay," because it has a clinical ring to it, implying illness.

And the word, "sodomy" is used, because of its biblical connotation of sinfulness.

But, of course, you knew that, you disingenuous jerk.

[liber8me]

first of all you arrogant dickhead i am not rightwing, i am actually very socially liberal.

second of all, saying someone is homosexual is actually the CORRECT term to use. gay is nothing more than slang, the same as poof or fairy. finally he was talking about the act in a legal context and this word has been used in the legal context for years.

[drawnhere]

This conversation is over. You're a dipshit. And I don't respond to dipshits like yourself.

Why are you a dipshit?

That's easy. Just read your last response to me.

[liber8me]

you're a braindead fuckwit who thinks that someone who calls a man homosexual instead of gay is a bigot. learn your legal definitions you tool. he was using specific legal jargon and you're judging him like the cunt you are because he didn't use the exact words you wanted. grow up, some idiots just aren't ready for the internet.

[smhussain62]

Totally disagree.

My view is that democracy is for determining representation of interests not for determining truth. Science doesn't appeal to a popular vote for determining what the speed of light is. Generals do not consult civilians before they pursue a particular strategy. Judges are ideally experts of reasoning from basic values to particular application. Now, individual judges are not perfect. So the rationale should be public, open to criticism but NOT based on a popular vote.

[WhyNotTruth]

This guy is such a bastard.

[bodeezy]

Scalia is a catholic.

He has a son that is a priest.....

Of course he realizes that the moronic religious are currently the majority in the U.S. & a democratic vote by the people could overturn such things as "Roe V. Wade".

Lifetime appointments to the supreme court should be abolished.

[PhatBrady1017]

ugh.  Democracy.

Ugh... the tyranny of the courts. America is screwed.

[doutonight]

You know.. I actually kinda agree with him.. the only problem is that you cannot have the majority vote on the rights of a minority. Especially when the majority seems to believe in.. astrology more than astronomy, to put it politely

[m0nkeybl1tz]

Very well said. If you disagree with Scalia's politics, then you should absolutely agree with what he's saying here, i.e. judges shouldn't have political power.

[TruthJunior]

so the purpose of judges is to agree with the people?

I would go with the purpose is to interpret the constitution/legislation

Scalia is a scumbag

[doutonight]

No, their purpose is to uphold the law and the constitution. Not to MAKE law or decide what is 'right'. You have other organs for that.

[PlayfulGibbon]

If every member of the Supreme Court held his views, the United States would become a Fascist Theocracy.

[baronmorris]

Scalia didn't learn shite at Harvard Law. The man is a douche.

lifetime appointments are retarded.

[shinvergil]

I would vote against "homosexual Sodomy".

[mad8london247]

@shinvergil

heterosexual sodomy is okay?

[Darkhorse21x]

Only after the second child.......LOLOLOLOLOL

[mistaspot1]

@shinvergil

How would you stop it?

[namecyber]

What's it got to do with you? Nobody's forcing YOU to do it. Mind your own business.

[wimscheers]

And so much for a constitutional rechtsstaat. According to this line of thinking, 51% should be enough to allow slavery.

[silversalvo]

I am the law!

[QuasistellarQuark]

Isn't the ideal that judges, politicians etc. are supposed to function in a disinterested, informed matter whereby they ensure against the tyranny of the majority.

[totaldreck]

Exactly right. The reason why the Supreme Court - a body of un-elected people - can strike down laws is precisely because all citizens need protection from the tyranny of the majority. The majority is not always right, and in egregious cases (e.g. the punishment for homosexuality is DEATH in some countries) the judiciary needs to step in and protect the freedoms of ALL citizens.

[mistaspot1]

@totaldreck

Yeah, direct democracy is a fundamental quality of any free society, but without judicial protection for unalienable human (natural) rights, it's unstable. There's got to be that balance. What Scalia is trying to do is to undermine direct democracy by refusing to rule on it.

[Re5Publica]

@mistaspot1

No, he has a point. Judges are not trained to rule on those kinds of matters, they are trained to rule according to the law, and the law is made by lawmakers who are supposed to be representative of the people.

[mistaspot1]

But they're also called to interpret the law. The law already exists in our Constitution.

[Craigipedia]

the fact that this jerk calls it "homosexual sodomy" shows his overt bias