Is Scalia's "Originalism" Really Homophobia

Another Great Video By my good Friend Sean Chapin:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SeanChapin1

Is US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's originalism possibly a cloak to hide personal biases of certain minority classes of people, and if Justice Scalia renders judgments based on personal biases, including perceived homophobia, in the name of originalism, is the Justice invoking not originalism but judicial activism? What do you think?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• lgbt
• lesbian
• gay
• bisexual
• transgender
• constitution
• originalism
• homophobia
• us
• supreme
• court
• justice
• antonin
• scalia
• judicial
• actvism
• roadtrip
• adventure
• nature
• travel
• log
• march
• on
• washington
• full
• equal
• civil
• human
• rights
• united
• states
• of
• america
• marriage
• equality
• fathers
• depfox
• Dont
• ask
• dont
• tell
• glbtqi

[doncourson]

@hardinmichael1981 I agree with that but clarify. First, certain rights don't come from the constitution and exist before the document. Also, laws and amendments dont always drive to expansion of human rights, see prohibition, Jim Crow etc. It also clearly depends on what you think rights are. Sometimes we define rights that are really wants. Obamacare is the right for the government to take from one to give to another. Not an expansion of liberty.

[hardinmichael1981]

@doncourson Your right it did need to be amended. But always in the direction of granting more people more rights - never taking away rights from anyone.

[doncourson]

Hilarious, the examples of societal evolution (slavery and suffrage) were put into law by constitutional amendment.

If the constitution is living, there would be no reason to amend it.

You defeat your own argument. However, I believe you should be able to screw anyone you want.

[studiousx3]

If you can prove that homosexuality is indeed a natural orientation that doesn't "manipulate" active human organs such as the anus then your video has substance.

[Visfen]

@ProfMTH What is your problem with originalism? I don't see how judicial activism makes any sense at all, but I respect you and your opinion which is why I am asking you (and why I'm subscribed to you). :)

[Visfen]

@gustjorodedheo Words change meaning. Of course we should rely on what was actually drafted. Look at the transfer of powers, that's where the government get their legitimacy. Such transfers are done trough amendment and laws and the understanding of the law while passing it is what is the law, not what it can come to mean to others in the future.

Take the word regulate, it meant make regular, today it means control.

If you want to change the law then you have the legislature.

[Visfen]

Originalism is the only valid way to interpret the constitution.

If you want to change the constitution you can amend it. This video is stupid because the one who made it doesn't even understand Originalism. Much less does he seem to have made any effort to understand it.

What possible qualification does judges have to change the interpretation of the law to suit the new consequences? That is what the legislature is for. It doesn't matter if it's wrong, what matters is if it's THE LAW.

[gustjorodedheo]

It's the obligation of the Judiciary to be the check to the President and the Congress. This is primarily done by examining laws and deciding if they agree with the principles laid out in the Constitution. The Judiciary does not add amendments to the Constitution, but clarifies various passages. Of course, at times they can go too far, such as interpreting the commerce clause quite broadly in order to allow Congress to regulate interstate trade. The 14th amend. states "All persons..." 100% Clear

[gustjorodedheo]

Scalia follows a very specific type of Originalism. Basically, the law is what the words MEANT to the framers of the law. This sort of view relies on looking at the written record, and trying to get into the framers' heads. At best, it leads to a type of modern projection of one's views onto the framers. The law is what the words MEAN, not what the founders MEANT. This is clear when we look at the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons...". Does this mean everyone, or white and black males?

[eldadevata]

@TavaresDelanis Since the second world war we have learned in Europe that without an international standard and control, all the horrors can and will necessary repeat again. No individual is the possession of any government, elected or otherwise. The court in Strasbourg can and should defend the rights of any individual in the member states, based on the treaty signed by all the parties. A democratic majority cannot and should not pass a legislation that is obviously discriminatory.